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 196

post #2926 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpcans View Post

I use Audirvana and JRMC interchangeably depending on my mood. Audirvana for its better SQ and JRMC because it can play my FLAC files.
Audirvana can play FLAC files.
post #2927 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnero View Post

Audirvana can play FLAC files.
Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.
post #2928 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpcans View Post


Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.


No, it only converts DSD to PCM in real time. However, there are numerous conversion utilities that are free or close to free.

post #2929 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpcans View Post

Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.

MP4 broadly means "the MPEG4 CODEC", which is a lossy video format (H.264 is an example of this). For audio files there are files with the extension ".M4A", which can either be Apple's AAC format (lossy), or Apple's ALAC format (lossless). That's really confusing using the same extension for two different file types. Plus the name is close enough to MP4 that people get it confused.

If you mean anything other than ALAC files, there's no reason to convert them to FLAC. ...and there's no real reason to convert those to FLAC either unless your player can't play ALAC.

So what exactly are you trying to do?

Brian.
post #2930 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpcans View Post


Yes Audirvana can also play FLAC files, but can it convert MP4 files to FLAC? Not sure, just axing a question.


If you are using A+ in iTunes integration mode, then you will need to convert to ALAC. Google: XLD - fantastic, freeware tool that is the standard for Mac OS music file conversation. 

 

I use it for ripping CDs, as well, with CDParanoia.

 

If you are using A+ in stand-alone mode, it will play FLAC with no conversion necessary.

post #2931 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgentry View Post

MP4 broadly means "the MPEG4 CODEC", which is a lossy video format (H.264 is an example of this). For audio files there are files with the extension ".M4A", which can either be Apple's AAC format (lossy), or Apple's ALAC format (lossless). That's really confusing using the same extension for two different file types. Plus the name is close enough to MP4 that people get it confused.

If you mean anything other than ALAC files, there's no reason to convert them to FLAC. ...and there's no real reason to convert those to FLAC either unless your player can't play ALAC.

So what exactly are you trying to do?

Brian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krutsch View Post


If you are using A+ in iTunes integration mode, then you will need to convert to ALAC. Google: XLD - fantastic, freeware tool that is the standard for Mac OS music file conversation. 

I use it for ripping CDs, as well, with CDParanoia.

If you are using A+ in stand-alone mode, it will play FLAC with no conversion necessary.
Thanks you guys. A lot of times I'm messing around with files and formats just because, none of it really affects the sound all that much IMO. Or does it?
post #2932 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpcans View Post



Thanks you guys. A lot of times I'm messing around with files and formats just because, none of it really affects the sound all that much IMO. Or does it?

 

Well... that's a debatable topic. Lossless audio is lossless and ALAC and FLAC will both decode into the exact same PCM data.

 

But, FLAC is easier to decode and it's also easier for software to read the meta data. You can see this on a low-powered Linux music player, such as MPD (i.e. like my Bryston BDP-1), by watching CPU usage during playback. Some folks believe that minimizing CPU utilization translates into less "noise" (EMI/RFI) during playback and, hence, improves sound quality.

 

If you are using a modern MacBook Retina, there is so much CPU available it's almost beyond belief, so it shouldn't matter which format you choose, from a sound quality perspective.

post #2933 of 2939
Thanks Krutsch, I think I'll listen to some Brahms and go to bed.
post #2934 of 2939

JRMC will convert the files for you. Why bother with yet another piece of software?

post #2935 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solrighal View Post
 

JRMC will convert the files for you. Why bother with yet another piece of software?

 

With all the talk about A+, I guess I neglected to re-read the earlier posts and recall that he already has JRMC.

 

But here's the real reason: I just don't like JRMC, so I go out of my way to find any excuse to encourage others to use something else.

post #2936 of 2939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krutsch View Post

But here's the real reason: I just don't like JRMC, so I go out of my way to find any excuse to encourage others to use something else.

JRMC is very "not Mac like". It's not intuitive in it's operation for many things. Because it has a different design paradigm. It took me a while to warm up to it. In my opinion, there is no more powerful player anywhere. It has the best queue based implementation I've seen so far, which is HUGE from a useability standpoint. It can do things that no other player I've seen can do, mostly because of it's sophistication.

It's kind of like flying an Apache helicopter. It's not easy. But it can do a LOT and it's extremely powerful. ...and once you've been flying it a while, you can easily operate it day to day. If you'd rather ride while someone else flies your twin engine prop plane instead, there are lots of other players that make things more easy and FAR less capable. I mean NO INSULT. it's just how it is. Easy and Powerful rarely go together.

Brian.
post #2937 of 2939

I haven't seen a single useful facility in other players that JRMC can't do also. Whereas there are a few things JRMC can do that no other players can match.

 

As far as usability & aesthetics are concerned I don't really buy those arguments either. I would imagine most people cut their computing teeth on a Windows machine & if you can get around Windows then there's no excuse for not being able to get around JRMC. There are some functions that are complicated to understand but since no-one else implements those functions at all it's a moot point. As far as aesthetics are concerned it's largely irrelevant for me. Once I have it all set up I access my music via an Android app called eos.

 

Having said all that, I don't care what anyone else uses. It's their money.

post #2938 of 2939

:popcorn:

 

Never test drove JRMC. And I'm ok with the handful players I have for my Mac music server at this writing. However, I was lookin' forward to your pointing out what it can do that the others can't.

post #2939 of 2939

Well, unlike some others I don't need to use iTunes at all. I can navigate my music by folder structure. I can create as many data fields as I like. It has built in trans-coding so no need for a separate app. It allows the use of 3rd party VST/VST3 plug-ins which can be fun.

 

It sounds better than anything else I've used.

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