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 129

post #1921 of 2219
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosgr63 View Post

I find the latest Fidelia release very evil.
It takes ages to load I am not happy with it.

I have quit Fidelia et al and gone with Bit Perfect plus iTunes. Love it. Everything works. Add the iOS remote - Bliss.

All the features (playlists in other words if you're listening Fidelia) and I think it sounds great!

I do appreciate the advice of people describing how Bit Perfect works etc.

Cheers.
post #1922 of 2219
Also thanks for the tip regarding ToneBooster IsoOne.
post #1923 of 2219

Nothing really to add.  For me Audirvana Free works pretty good.  The + is WAY too bright and really doesn't give a pleasing Analog (Warm) sound.  $75 bucks is not worth it IMO, when the free features are just about the same as the +..Just a few things missing. If the free had the use of .Cue it would be perfect...But it is FREE.   If you just want a standalone player, I'd say grab the FREE it is the best sounding Free player for sure.  If you need the whole Itunes features, it's a hard call.  $75 is steep, More like in the $20 range is what it should cost IMO.

But if you got it $$$$, I guess go for it :)

post #1924 of 2219
Quote:
Originally Posted by littletree76 View Post

Note the latest version of Audirvana Plus is 1.5.4 and it has been updated to allow audio plugins conform to AudioUnits format. So features and prices between latest Audirvana Plus and Fidelia in advanced mode are close. Main difference between the two players is Audirvana Plus does not rely on Apple's Core Audio module for audio processing at all, thus there is definitely difference in sound quality. In fact Audirvana Plus has been developed from scratch with its own audio decoding algorithm and architecture with no regard to what has been done in Core Audio module.

 

As mentioned in my previous post long ago, please keep in mind functionalities/objectives of different software in assessing these software. JRiver Media Centre is just like iTunes, its main purpose is for managing and playing media files to suit general usage. I am only interested in software player with the best playback/decoding quality (to be used with audiophile grade equipments as digital transport) even though it might have very poor media management and user interface (such as pathetic playlist of Audirvana Plus). So please avoid comparing apple with orange and causing confusion.

 

To developer of Audirvana Plus, please fix the playlist (particularly the miniature font) as soon as possible. It is about time you ditch skeuomorphic in user interface design just like what Apple has done lately, the main user interface does not have to look like real/physical player in Mac OS X desktop.

I am using the iTunes integration mode with Audirvana Plus and hence do not need to see the "pathetic playlist of Audirvana Plus". It is essentially the iTunes interface while the music is routed through Audirvana. I get all the benefits of a beautifully organised music library (all FLAC and HI-Res) and the best audiophile music. Check it out it was a game changer for me and I have never looked back.  

post #1925 of 2219
I'm currently running the Audivana plus demo (1.5.4) and I'm quite impressed with it. Fidellia seems to have a few problems with the current version which affects the iZotope sampler meaning that I've been reduced to using it with the Apple sampler, which while OKish, kind of defeats the point of having a high quality audio player.

Audivana seems to produce a more cohesive sound than Fidellia, and also a touch warmer, making the Fidellia player appear to be a little rough around the edges, even compared with the previous version where the iZotope sampler functioned OK.

All in all Audivana appears to be a more finished product, and the iTunes compatibility is the icing on the cake. I'll be listening to it seriously this weekend and I can imagine the credit card will be coming out.
post #1926 of 2219

I was using Audirvana + integrated mode for awhile just because it's so easy but was seeing a few posts about how it's sounds better in playlist mode.  So with iTunes in Song view, I can easily drop an album cover into the playlist and it quickly adds all the songs in seconds.  I'm noticing a fuller, warmer sound.  The integrate sounds great but a tad on the bright side, but the playlist mode completely fixes that.   


Edited by iamoneagain - 7/25/13 at 3:57pm
post #1927 of 2219

So, I decided to try out a higher grade audio player as my next step toward the best sound I can achieve.

 

My set up looks like this: iTunes w/ various ALAC and MP3 320s > Dragonfly DAC > Pico Slim > W4R 

I haven't found a file yet, ALAC or otherwise, with a sample rate over 16 bit / 44.100 kHz in my library. Naturally, since I don't have vinyl rips.

 

edit: I'm a noob. Figured out my question about Audirvana.

 

Let the testing continue...


Edited by TK277 - 8/4/13 at 10:45pm
post #1928 of 2219

I was having an issue with Audirvana Plus that I was hoping you guys could help me with.

 

I have My MBP plugged into my hifimediy Sabre Dac (24/96) and I'm using iTunes integrated mode.

Most of my songs are 44.1 sample rate and the display for audirvana says "DAC: 16/44.1kHz"

However when I play one of the songs that has a 22 sample rate the display says "DAC: 24/96kHz"

 

Does this mean that is is not using my DAC for the higher sample rate songs and is for lower or is this normal?

Thanks a bunch 

post #1929 of 2219
Thread Starter 

22 sample rate? Where is that from?

post #1930 of 2219
I was going to say the same exact thing but I held myself back. It might be a weird glitch with the recognition of the file's sample rate and what the DAC can convert from. My ODAC says 24/96 in Audirvana Plus when playing a 24/88 file.
post #1931 of 2219

The 22.05 is a CD I ripped a while ago, I have no idea why it went over at such a low rate.

So is it alright and just a weird glitch or is it not recognizing the DAC properly?

post #1932 of 2219
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore914 View Post

The 22.05 is a CD I ripped a while ago, I have no idea why it went over at such a low rate.
So is it alright and just a weird glitch or is it not recognizing the DAC properly?

I think I know what's going on here. Audirvana has perhaps recognised that the DAC doesn't support 22.05 and is doing the up sampling itself in order to get the music to the DAC in a compatible format.

As to why it's up sampling to 24/96 I don't know, but with my brief experience with audirvana up sampling seems to be an all or nothing affair.

I've no actual basis for what I've said there, it's purely conjecture.
post #1933 of 2219
Well, as I started Audivana this morning I was disappointed to see that my trial had run out. Yes, I probably could have hacked it to get another trial, but I pay for the software that I use, so the credit card came out and now I have a fully licensed version - I was that impressed with sound quality it delivered that I had to buy it. Very happy with it.
post #1934 of 2219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaphead View Post

Well, as I started Audivana this morning I was disappointed to see that my trial had run out. Yes, I probably could have hacked it to get another trial, but I pay for the software that I use, so the credit card came out and now I have a fully licensed version - I was that impressed with sound quality it delivered that I had to buy it. Very happy with it.

If you leave Audirvana open in the background, the license will never run out.
post #1935 of 2219
Has anybody heard the release of Audivana (1.5.5). BIG improvement with sound quality.
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