Mac OS X Music Players - alternatives to iTunes - Page 120

Quote:

Originally Posted by hubee 

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

 

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

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."

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? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjones 

 

Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? 

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

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

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

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

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)  

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjones 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? 

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjones 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Any thoughts on what could help me make my decision? 

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

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

but my wallet and I are no longer on friendly terms

Quote:

Originally Posted by hubee 

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... :)

And a nice intro price of only $25

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtinto 

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.

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?

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