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 132

post #1966 of 2236

Hi Currawong,

 

Great article thank you for the post :)

I have been dying to find a good software that i can listen to music on my mac and actually see the music wave forms while the track is playing.

Do you know of any simple softwares that can do this?

 

I greatly appreciate your feedback,

 

Tara

post #1967 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara View Post
 

Hi Currawong,

 

Great article thank you for the post :)

I have been dying to find a good software that i can listen to music on my mac and actually see the music wave forms while the track is playing.

Do you know of any simple softwares that can do this?

 

I greatly appreciate your feedback,

 

Tara

Fidelia?

 

Or the free program Audacity.

post #1968 of 2236

Or any media player such as Fidelia, Audirvana Plus which support various plugins (conform to VST or AU/Components format) and a wave analyser plugin. Better still plugin display is always standalone and detached from main interface of media player, you can resize the wave display to your liking or even stream the wave display to big HDTV through AirPlay protocol if you have Apple TV connected to the TV.

 

Probably the wave plugin which only generate additional display without affecting audio quality is worthwhile as many other audio plugins cause trade-off among audio parameters (professional knowledge is needed to tune these parameters). Though many audio plugins can be expensive but the wave plugin is often offered for free as they are deemed unimportant to audio quality of media player.

 

So if you think that your Mac hardware is decent enough to handle extra processing load (purposefully made very light by developers) of the wave plugin, go ahead make a search for such plugin. Note any plugins installed in system or user Library/Audio/Plug-Ins folder are available to all host applications (Fidelia, Audirvana Plus etc) compatible with the VST/AU format. They are paid/installed once and use forever for all applications (updates may be required for changes in Mac OS X made by Apple).

 

Can someone suggest some audio plugins which are easy to tune for required audio effect yet do not break the bank ?

post #1969 of 2236

Ecoute is a clean and simple iTunes alternative. 

post #1970 of 2236

can someone suggest a good quality player for Max OS X which supports DLNA/UPNP servers? i really like audirvana but unfortunately it does not support DLNA. i have tried a few others with no luck. thanks

post #1971 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavloosha View Post

can someone suggest a good quality player for Max OS X which supports DLNA/UPNP servers? i really like audirvana but unfortunately it does not support DLNA. i have tried a few others with no luck. thanks


 

I think the Mac version of JRiver should handle that.
post #1972 of 2236
JRiver is not compatible with Mavericks so far, I was not able to launch it, but I will check it out later, thanks. I was also thinking about XBMC. Any other alternatives?
post #1973 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by pavloosha View Post

JRiver is not compatible with Mavericks so far, I was not able to launch it, but I will check it out later, thanks. I was also thinking about XBMC. Any other alternatives?

I just tried the demo on my MacBook Pro and it works fine? (I use a Windows PC for my main library)

Make sure you have the latest version - the one I got was 19.0.72

post #1974 of 2236

I tried Audirvana's free trial on my MBP and it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware. But I have since acquired a 32-bit USB-DAC (Fostex HP-A3), and the free trial version of Audirvana expired at the same time, which has left me wondering:

 

With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?

 

My impression has been that any of these player programs are simply feeding the DAC the raw digital signal via USB, so it really doesn't matter which program does the feeding. Is this correct?

 

Sorry if this has been answered before, this thread is 132 pages long and much great stuff is probably buried within!

post #1975 of 2236
I think the benefits are independent from the dac architrecture to the exception of the reduction in jitter. Even there, I am not sure what jitter means in these days of asynchronous usb transfer.

The main points for audirnava in my rig are the automatic sample rate switching, hog and integer mode support.

I highly recommended as it is a bug free, actively supported product (not what I could say of the competition when I was evaluating various softwares).
post #1976 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHern View Post
 

I tried Audirvana's free trial on my MBP and it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware. But I have since acquired a 32-bit USB-DAC (Fostex HP-A3), and the free trial version of Audirvana expired at the same time, which has left me wondering:

 

With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?

 

My impression has been that any of these player programs are simply feeding the DAC the raw digital signal via USB, so it really doesn't matter which program does the feeding. Is this correct?

 

Sorry if this has been answered before, this thread is 132 pages long and much great stuff is probably buried within!

 

No, that's not correct.  If it doesn't matter what program feeds a USB DAC, then virtually everyone would use just iTunes, be entirely happy, spend no additional money on other programs, and this thread would not be 132 pages long.

 

Whatever advantage in sonics you perceived using Audirvana through your MBP hardware alone (using its own headphone out, I assume) will be exponentially magnified with a better external DAC.

post #1977 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaHamster View Post
 

No, that's not correct.  If it doesn't matter what program feeds a USB DAC, then virtually everyone would use just iTunes

 

There are more reasons (and ones that actually make sense, like better user interface, features, stability, etc.) to use different software than worrying about one bit perfect audio stream sounding better than another.

post #1978 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

There are more reasons (and ones that actually make sense, like better user interface, features, stability, etc.) to use different software than worrying about one bit perfect audio stream sounding better than another.

Speak for yourself - well, I guess you are.  Sound quality may be low down on your list of priorities, but I suspect for many people having the best sound quality possible will be their highest priority - to suggest that this aim "does not actually make sense" is absolutely ridiculous, and quite frankly, pretty appalling.  However, of COURSE there are other reasons one would choose other software such as SRC and equalisation etc. 

 

I just never thought I would ever hear anyone on this site state that sound quality is not only a low priority, but that searching for it actually "does not make sense".

 

Amazing !!

 

Also, given that the poster I was responding to was asking specifically about sound quality when they asked "With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?", I believe answering his question to be a priority, over inventing my own and just talking about "user interface, features, stability" as you might wish.  In other words, I am answering a question which was actually asked, rather than just inventing a different one in my own mind.


Edited by NinjaHamster - 11/25/13 at 3:33am
post #1979 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by stv014 View Post
 

 

An imaginary sound quality difference between identical binary data is indeed low down on my list of priorities. There might be a sound quality difference if the playback is not bit perfect, or because of buggy software and/or broken hardware, but once you have non-buggy bit perfect playback (something that can easily be achieved even with free players like foobar2000 on Windows), further "improvement" - particularly one related to sound stage, bass extension, or other non-sense, rather than something obvious like skipping, which, on the other hand, would fail to meet the requirement of non-buggy bit perfect playback - is almost always placebo, and in the rare cases when it is not, it is some kind of hardware or driver problem. I have yet to see evidence that audible "software induced jitter" is not a myth on anything other than pathetically poor hardware. It is the kind of stuff for the same people that believe in "huge improvements" from $10000 power cords, cable elevators, and all sorts of esoteric tweaks. 

 

If you believe "bitperfect" = all players sound the same, that is absolutely your prerogative. Most people in this particular thread will not agree with you, as they have listened, and can hear, a difference. This is why I thought you might be trolling - come to the place where an intractably objectivist viewpoint would make the biggest "splash". However, you have every right to do so, as this is a forum, and disparate views should be expressed - though it might sound less like trolling if you actually directly answered the question being asked, and expressed less ridicule in doing so ... for instance, if you said "I have listened to one/several of these players and, in my opinion, the sound quality is exactly the same as iTunes".

 

Suggesting it SHOULDN'T make sense, and that it therefore doesn't, is quite an unscientific approach (not to mention a logical fallacy)  and I'll note that you make no mention of being unable to HEAR differences. Or any mention of you having listened for yourself at all. Your point is that, given your current level of understanding, and what is currently measurable, there SHOULDN'T be a difference (kind of like how bumblebees can't fly, or how 16 bit CD's promised "perfect sound forever" - heck even "jitter" was an unknown phenomenon, and unmeasured, in CD playback less than 20 years ago ... it's just that some people could hear it even though it didn't exist).

 

Certainly, even within different builds of one particular player I can hear significant sound quality differences through the inbuilt DAC/headphone socket on a 2011 iMac using Apple's crappy iBuds (Try Audirvana 1.5.10 verses 1.5.9 - they are hugely different in sound quality - though the base code is exceedingly similar). I would welcome your opinion that there is no difference in sound quality, for you, far more if you mentioned some form of listening tests (I know - an actual TEST), rather than saying that you don't understand the mechanics of WHY it would make a difference and inferring from this that there is therefore, objectively and incontrovertibly, no difference.

 

Let's face it - you are not probably going to actually listen with an open mind, and you will argue that I am listening with TOO open a mind (leading to psycho-acoustic effects such as "confirmation bias" etc.).  Though in this case, I hated the sound of the latest revision of Audirvana Plus and rolled back to 1.5.9 - even though I expected the new version to have better sound quality as it was promoted as having "sound quality optimisations".  

 

It's easy enough to try for yourself ... it sounds as though you aren't using a Mac, so you can't try the two builds of Audirvana Plus I suggested, but how about comparing "iTunes" on your PC with something like a demo of JRiver or Foobar 2000 - no financial expenditure required on your part, and all can play bitperfect. If you can't hear the difference, then you'll be able to state objectively that it SHOULDN'T make a difference (which is still a bit of a modification from you stating categorically that it DOESN'T make a difference) AND will also be able to state that you tested it and that you couldn't HEAR a difference.  This will make a far stronger, defensible and compelling position than arguing that we/you know all that there is to be known, all that can be known, about digital transmission. 

 

However, just to take it back to the poster whose question I was originally answering, they COULD hear a big difference in sound quality between iTunes and Audirvana ("it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware") - using only the built-in DAC and headphone amplifier of their computer !!  Their question is whether such a sonic improvement (viv-avis iTunes) will disappear when using an external DAC.  I guess your position is that they didn't really hear an improvement in sound quality in the first place on their MBP, and if they are delusional enough to think the sound quality improved on an internal DAC, they might be delusional enough to believe the sound quality will be improved on an external DAC - would this be a fair statement ?  Or is it your contention that they DID hear a sonic improvement on the internal DAC, but this would not carry through to an external DAC as the bitperfect stream to an external DAC is somehow less "bitperfect" than the stream to the internal DAC ? I am trying to help that person who posted, and your alternate viewpoint would also help them by providing some balance.  So if you could clarify how your statements might relate to their question, that would be helpful (ie.  Is it that they didn't hear a difference in sound, or that they won't hear a difference in sound, or that they could with an internal DAC, but won't with an external ?).


Edited by NinjaHamster - 11/25/13 at 5:09am
post #1980 of 2236
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHern View Post
 

I tried Audirvana's free trial on my MBP and it worked wonders to improve the sound from the MBP hardware. But I have since acquired a 32-bit USB-DAC (Fostex HP-A3), and the free trial version of Audirvana expired at the same time, which has left me wondering:

 

With a 32-bit USB-DAC is there any sonic benefit to using Audirvana over iTunes on my MBP Retina?

 

My impression has been that any of these player programs are simply feeding the DAC the raw digital signal via USB, so it really doesn't matter which program does the feeding. Is this correct?

 

Sorry if this has been answered before, this thread is 132 pages long and much great stuff is probably buried within!

 

Look at it this way: Your actual file is your cd, Audivrana is your cd player, your DAC is an extension of the cd

player (just like in real world). Back in the day, in the early years of cd, people  would buy a cheap cd player that had good transport (I had a Magnavox 650) and use a good external DAC to make a budget audiophile cd player. Hell, they still do it now.

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