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 120

post #1786 of 2313
I have encountered the same problem some time ago with older version (not sure with latest version 1.4.5) even in standalone mode. One remedy I can think of is to copy tracks from CD to hard disk before playing these tracks. Bare in mind that with memory play option turned on, Audirvana Plus will only play the selected track after it has been loaded completely in memory and all post-processing on the track have been done.
post #1787 of 2313
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent One View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

I've added Swinsian (http://swinsian.com) to the original article if anyone is interested in a fully fledged iTunes alternative player.

 

Have you had a chance to put it through its paces? I'm a little behind inside the listening room - this morning is only my second session since 20 December, due to personal issues. But, I'm slowly working it out. biggrin.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

I've added Swinsian (http://swinsian.com) to the original article if anyone is interested in a fully fledged iTunes alternative player.

Are you going to share any thoughts on the player Swinsian? Never heard of it 'til now.

 

I saw it mentioned on ALO's Facebook page so I thought I'd check it out. Since it's not compatible with Bit Perfect or Amarra I don't think I'll be using it. It does look a LOT better than some of the other attempts at making an iTunes alternative, many of which appeared to me to be rough-looking ports of software for other systems.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Does anyone know if Audirvana Plus works with iTunes' CD player? When I try to play a CD through Audirvana Plus, a single track takes ages to load...on the order of minutes.

 

It is probably trying to load the tracks into memory. Better to rip the CD (make sure to turn Error Correction on in iTunes first) then play the tracks.

post #1788 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubee View Post

It seems that Audirvana+ wins the glorius battle of the OSX music players :)

 

Folks, what do you think about the forthcoming release of Mac version of JRiver Media Center? I'm personally curious about it :).


Official site: http://www.jriver.com/mac.html

And a new expected release date! "The first public preview release is scheduled for February 22, 2013, and will be made available on Interact."

post #1789 of 2313

I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound. 

 

Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.

 

Audirvana Plus is a pleasant sounding player. It sounds like the most forward of the players, with Amara 2.4 following close behind. For instance, it places me within the front row rather than the second row like Amara 2.4, and further back like Pure Music. It also sounds a tad clearer than the other two, and I might say the one with the most natural presentation. I'm not sure there's a big weakness with this player. If I could point to one thing, the forward nature and the not as smooth presentation of the sound may not work with all music. Sometimes I want to observe the music from the middle row, and not be constantly exposed to it from up close. 

 

Finally, Pure Music brings together many of the qualities of both the Audirvana Plus and the Amara 2.4, yet not to the same degree. For instance, it was not as smooth as the Amara, but it was smoother than the Audirvana. It lacked the forwardness of the other two. It still portrays good depth, clarity, and soundstage. It may be the most analytical. I find it does not engage me as much as the other two, possibly because it lacked the distinctive presentation that the other two have.

 

 

So that's where I stand with these excellent players. The differences are subtle to microscopic in some aspects. I've been switching feverishly between these three over the past two day that I have auditioned them. I sometimes think I hear differences from memory, but then they are so small that it's hard to know if I am making them up in my mind. Perhaps, I should just spend one day with each one and enjoy the music rather than look to spot where they differ from each other.


Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? smile.gif


Edited by sjones - 2/15/13 at 1:30am
post #1790 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post

I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound. 

Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.

Audirvana Plus is a pleasant sounding player. It sounds like the most forward of the players, with Amara 2.4 following close behind. For instance, it places me within the front row rather than the second row like Amara 2.4, and further back like Pure Music. It also sounds a tad clearer than the other two, and I might say the one with the most natural presentation. I'm not sure there's a big weakness with this player. If I could point to one thing, the forward nature and the not as smooth presentation of the sound may not work with all music. Sometimes I want to observe the music from the middle row, and not be constantly exposed to it from up close. 

Finally, Pure Music brings together many of the qualities of both the Audirvana Plus and the Amara 2.4, yet not to the same degree. For instance, it was not as smooth as the Amara, but it was smoother than the Audirvana. It lacked the forwardness of the other two. It still portrays good depth, clarity, and soundstage. It may be the most analytical. I find it does not engage me as much as the other two, possibly because it lacked the distinctive presentation that the other two have.


So that's where I stand with these excellent players. The differences are subtle to microscopic in some aspects. I've been switching feverishly between these three over the past two day that I have auditioned them. I sometimes think I hear differences from memory, but then they are so small that it's hard to know if I am making them up in my mind. Perhaps, I should just spend one day with each one and enjoy the music rather than look to spot where they differ from each other.


Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? smile.gif

If they all sound close or you can't really decide between them I would choose whatever interface is the cleanest and easiest to use at this point.
post #1791 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post

 

Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? smile.gif

I agree there must be some special sauce to Amarra 2.4. It drives me crazy because I hate the program with a passion. It is ugly, cumbersome, and slow. When I'm listening to electronica, I always use Amarra's bass boost EQ. I've tried copying the exact bass-boost setting into a parametric EQ in a plug-in in Fidelia, but the sound is not as smooth or subtle. I just really enjoy the combo. But it has MAJOR drawbacks. I cannot use Amarra to play randomized playlists, mainly because of its slow, lagging audio handling. When Amarra plays songs in sequence, they load quickly after the initial 10 second freeze while "processing" tracks. But, in a random playlist, this lag occurs with every track change, and worse, you get a clip of the wrong track  briefly playing before it gets cut-off due to the randomization process. Incredibly frustrating! Add to that, Amarra is the ONLY player that adds a pop or brief pause between gapless songs on my system (I have many players). I've fiddled with its settings relentlessly, but the micro pause remains.

 

I own Amarra 2.4, Fidelia, and Decibel. But to be honest, it is Audirvana that appears to be undergoing the most active development, and the direct control over the Dragonfly's volume is fantastic. With that said, Fidelia still takes the lead as far as features. It also has a beautiful iOS app to control playlists. Also, JRiver is releasing a Mac version this month, and you can buy it for half price at the moment: $25.00.

I have done so, but the beta is not yet out, so I can't comment on its fidelity, features, or stability. However, JRiver's supporters put up quite a fuss about loving the program on the forums, so for $25 it might be worth jumping on board.

 

I find I am not satisfied with any one player. They all excel in areas and have draw-backs. But, if I could only have one, with everything I know about these players, it would be Audirvana. The active development, current feature set, and ... very close to Amarra sound quality ... wins for me.

post #1792 of 2313

I'll add a vote for Fidelia - for the iOS App alone.

 

(I find the computer (turning 'on') really disruptive to listening to music ... the small-screen remote app totally solves that problem)  L3000.gif

post #1793 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post

I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound. 

 

Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.

 

Audirvana Plus is a pleasant sounding player. It sounds like the most forward of the players, with Amara 2.4 following close behind. For instance, it places me within the front row rather than the second row like Amara 2.4, and further back like Pure Music. It also sounds a tad clearer than the other two, and I might say the one with the most natural presentation. I'm not sure there's a big weakness with this player. If I could point to one thing, the forward nature and the not as smooth presentation of the sound may not work with all music. Sometimes I want to observe the music from the middle row, and not be constantly exposed to it from up close. 

 

Finally, Pure Music brings together many of the qualities of both the Audirvana Plus and the Amara 2.4, yet not to the same degree. For instance, it was not as smooth as the Amara, but it was smoother than the Audirvana. It lacked the forwardness of the other two. It still portrays good depth, clarity, and soundstage. It may be the most analytical. I find it does not engage me as much as the other two, possibly because it lacked the distinctive presentation that the other two have.

 

 

So that's where I stand with these excellent players. The differences are subtle to microscopic in some aspects. I've been switching feverishly between these three over the past two day that I have auditioned them. I sometimes think I hear differences from memory, but then they are so small that it's hard to know if I am making them up in my mind. Perhaps, I should just spend one day with each one and enjoy the music rather than look to spot where they differ from each other.


Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? smile.gif

I went through the same demo process.  I went with Amarra 2.4 as it was the only player that seemed to work consistently with my Audioquest Dragonfly DAC.  I haven't had any regrets.  There is some special sauce in the Amarra player.

post #1794 of 2313

Clunky navigation aside, there's something pleasing about Amarra to me, though I can't quite seem to place it.

post #1795 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjones View Post

I am having a difficult time deciding on which player I want to purchase. I am mostly basing my decision on sound quality, but I have to be practical and factor in price as well. Currently I have trials of the following: Amara 2.4, Pure Music, Audirvana Plus, and Amara HiFi. I also bought BitPerfect from the App Store using a gift card. However, BitPerfect is not on the same level as the other players, but noticeably better than just iTunes. I quickly eliminated Amara HiFi, because I actually found it sounded harsh. It's not smooth like Amara 2.4, and it's less organic, has less depth and dynamics, and generally I found myself less involved with the music. I would say it is above the level of BitPerfect, but not by much. This leaves me with three very good sounding players, and each having a different presentation of the sound. 

 

Amara 2.4 is the most different from all the others. It sounds the most organic and smooth. The notes stand out very distinctly from the darkness or blackness of the background. It's like the notes have the most depth and dimensionality out of all the players. The sound is very engaging. Because it is so smooth, there is no edge to the notes at all. It's like the software ran a comb over each note and took out the harshness. I never felt my ears fatigue listening to it. This smoothness does not sacrifice details at all, it's still there. However, I keep thinking the smoothness is slightly more than what is a natural presentation. It sounds incredibly nice, but I have a nagging feeling this is sacrificing accuracy of a real presentation.

 

Audirvana Plus is a pleasant sounding player. It sounds like the most forward of the players, with Amara 2.4 following close behind. For instance, it places me within the front row rather than the second row like Amara 2.4, and further back like Pure Music. It also sounds a tad clearer than the other two, and I might say the one with the most natural presentation. I'm not sure there's a big weakness with this player. If I could point to one thing, the forward nature and the not as smooth presentation of the sound may not work with all music. Sometimes I want to observe the music from the middle row, and not be constantly exposed to it from up close. 

 

Finally, Pure Music brings together many of the qualities of both the Audirvana Plus and the Amara 2.4, yet not to the same degree. For instance, it was not as smooth as the Amara, but it was smoother than the Audirvana. It lacked the forwardness of the other two. It still portrays good depth, clarity, and soundstage. It may be the most analytical. I find it does not engage me as much as the other two, possibly because it lacked the distinctive presentation that the other two have.

 

 

So that's where I stand with these excellent players. The differences are subtle to microscopic in some aspects. I've been switching feverishly between these three over the past two day that I have auditioned them. I sometimes think I hear differences from memory, but then they are so small that it's hard to know if I am making them up in my mind. Perhaps, I should just spend one day with each one and enjoy the music rather than look to spot where they differ from each other.


Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? smile.gif

 

hm... how should we put this.... i ended up owning all of them...... biggrin.gif

your observations mirrors mine. For the longest time i've held off trying amarra but all this talk of "special sause" got me curious. Finally downloaded the demo last night and despite the software UI, i have to say there IS indeed a more organic feel to Amarra. Needless to say that "Buy Now" button was clicked on fairly shortly after (15% off... how could one resist wink_face.gif) Do i regret buying other softwares? heck no. I'm just happy i've got choices at the end of the day

 

but my wallet and I are no longer on friendly terms

post #1796 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubee View Post


Official site: http://www.jriver.com/mac.html

And a new expected release date! "The first public preview release is scheduled for February 22, 2013, and will be made available on Interact."


Only two days remaining... :)

post #1797 of 2313

And a nice intro price of only $25

post #1798 of 2313
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtinto View Post

And a nice intro price of only $25

 

Which I paid, sight unseen.  I've never even used a J. River product of any kind before (Mac user), but the love they get all over the interwebs that I frequent made it seem like a no-brainer (small) investment to at least give this a shot.

post #1799 of 2313

This is kind of unrelated, but why is it that audiophile software exists for Mac for a kind of hefty price, but on Windows most "audiophile approved" media players are free? Does Apple have special sound processing in Mac OS X that you need to pay to design your media player around or something?

post #1800 of 2313

J. River for MAC is really buggy right now.  They still have lots of work to do to get it stable.

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