Mac users, what are your media players?
May 5, 2010 at 3:46 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 108

SillyHoney

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Posts
810
Likes
15
Since the day I got into audiophile world I haven't try iTunes no more. Today because of a friend asking for help on album artworks I opened my iTunes and played some songs in 320kbps. Guess what? It sounds sucky compared to Winamp
eek.gif
Clarity and dynamic are what noticeably worse. Does iTunes really sucks or it is just me not get used to iTunes after a while? If it really suck then what is your media player Mac-Fiers?
 
May 5, 2010 at 6:33 AM Post #6 of 108
Well so maybe iTunes Windows version sucks. That's what I thought too. Songbird on PC sucks too. I love its lyric plug-in but its sound quality is a no go so I'm stuck with the ugly Winamp if not Foobar
frown.gif


Thank for inputs guys
smily_headphones1.gif
 
May 5, 2010 at 6:53 AM Post #7 of 108
The sound of iTunes can vary with your Mac.

Sound from a '07 MacBook seems unspecial; somehow. the '09 MacBook Pro seems to have considerably more dimension and attack. The real difference is notable with my '10 iMac - with fine stereo separation and clarity - as good as hearing a track with an amp.

You might find iTunes more pleasing when you have a chance to play around with Sound Enhancer - which allows more stereo separation.
 
May 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM Post #8 of 108
Quote:

Originally Posted by V1KTA /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Out of curiosity, what kind of Mac are you using?


Quote:

Originally Posted by spinali /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The sound of iTunes can vary with your Mac.

Sound from a '07 MacBook seems unspecial; somehow. the '09 MacBook Pro seems to have considerably more dimension and attack. The real difference is notable with my '10 iMac - with fine stereo separation and clarity - as good as hearing a track with an amp.

You might find iTunes more pleasing when you have a chance to play around with Sound Enhancer - which allows more stereo separation.



I'm using Windows, that's the reason I think. You are right about attack. It just disappears on my iTunes.

On my friend MBP 13" Snow Leopard I don't find iTunes bad, at all.

Damn Apple, they need to improve Windows version, I love album artworks and the ease of use on iTunes.
 
May 5, 2010 at 8:19 AM Post #9 of 108
I was going to say make sure the sound enhancer is off if you want a more natural, unprocessed sound. Whether on or off, it's worth playing with the sound enhancer to see which you prefer.
 
May 6, 2010 at 2:22 AM Post #12 of 108
I NEVER use any EQ, enhacer or whatever. I also use USB output to feed my Gamma-2. But iTunes on PC is simply bad. It's just so obvious. iTunes on Snow Leopard is cool tho.
 
May 6, 2010 at 2:27 AM Post #13 of 108
iTunes exists in PC format for one reason -- to allow Windows users to sync music to their iPods. It is perceptibly slow, and I'm not sure it does bit-perfect. Unless you have an iPod, I would strongly suggest WinAmp over iTunes.
 
On a Mac, it's a different story. I use iTunes as my main player, with Songbird and Cog for FLAC and SHN playback. No complaints whatsoever about iTunes sound quality. Some will tell you that third-party burning software creates better rips, but I've never noticed it.
 
May 6, 2010 at 5:58 AM Post #14 of 108
I use itunes without any problems either, but if you want the best, you can try SonicStudio's Amarra. I really want to try it someday....
 
May 6, 2010 at 6:14 AM Post #15 of 108
Actually, I've done comparisons with foobar and WASAPI vs. iTunes on Windows 7 vs. iTunes on Snow Leopard. Foobar sounds pretty same as iTunes on SL, iTunes on Win7 sounds worse - I couldn't tell difference between mp3 320kbps and ALAC. Oh, and about Amarra, you can try it for free, but personally I don't hear any difference between iTunes with and without Amarra. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top