[paradoxper]

Quote:

If you are outputting WASAPI on Windows via JRiver, and aren't doing any kind of processing (ReplayGain, Crossfeed, EQ etc.) JRiver is bit-perfect, and should sound identical to Amarra - assuming Amarra is bit-perfect.

If you are running processing on the files, well then it's possible to sound different, but highly unlikely if you are only using ReplayGain.

It's as simple as not all bit-perfect music players sound the same to me.

 

[sterling1]

I've played around between WAS and direct sound as well as bit and sample rates. It's now set for direct sound and 16/44. Output goes to X-FI HD which has exclusive control. Everything is up-sampled there to 24/96. So far, 256k, 16/44. and 24/96 material all sounds really good. I must admit I don't really understand what to set bit rate to in iTunes however. 

 

[StudioSound]

It's as simple as not all bit-perfect music players sound the same to me.

If they don't sound the same, one of them is not bit-perfect. It isn't JRiver.

I've played around between WAS and direct sound as well as bit and sample rates. It's now set for direct sound and 16/44. Output goes to X-FI HD which has exclusive control. Everything is up-sampled there to 24/96. So far, 256k, 16/44. and 24/96 material all sounds really good. I must admit I don't really understand what to set bit rate to set iTunes to however.

You should probably just output 24-bit directly, rather than 16/44. If the output is unchanged and bit-perfect, the only difference between 16-bit and 24-bit output is some extra zeros to pad the file to 24-bit.

If the output is not bit-perfect (volume is not at 100%, EQ or volume normalization is running etc.) then 24-bit leaves more headroom to make adjustments.

If you choose to upsample, then whether you let iTunes or other music software handle it, or the sound card/DAC, could potentially make an audible difference.

 

[Destroysall]

Quote:

I've played around between WAS and direct sound as well as bit and sample rates. It's now set for direct sound and 16/44. Output goes to X-FI HD which has exclusive control. Everything is up-sampled there to 24/96. So far, 256k, 16/44. and 24/96 material all sounds really good. I must admit I don't really understand what to set bit rate to set iTunes to however. 

I've read that you should fluctuate between the two bit-rates in accordance to your music. I only have a handful of files that are in a hi-resolution format, so I usually leave the settings at 16-bit/44.1kHz.
Quote:

If they don't sound the same, one of them is not bit-perfect. It isn't JRiver.

I feel that with this latest update, iTunes is now bit-perfect for both Mac OS and Windows operating systems.

 

[StudioSound]

I feel that with this latest update, iTunes is now bit-perfect for both Mac OS and Windows operating systems.

On my system, it does not appear to actually be using WASAPI output, which does not guarantee a bit-perfect output. I can't hear it switching from 24/48 to 24/44 when playing back music either, so I suspect it is still resampling.

It is possible for iTunes to do bit-perfect output, at least on OS X, but it does not support dynamically changing its output if you have a library that has a mixture of sample rates, rather than just 44.1kHz files. (bit-depth doesn't matter)

If you have your system configured in such a way that playing back 44.1 files in iTunes is bit-perfect, then playing back 48kHz or others will not be - at least not without an external utility such as Amarra handling the sample rate switching.

 

[sterling1]

Just for grins and giggles, I set iTunes to 24/192. I played a file that was downloaded into my iTunes library at 16/44. Remember, my X-FI HD is set to up sample everything from computer to 24/96, since I have many hi rez files in iTunes at that rate, which is compatible with the highest bit rate my pre/pro's DAC will receive. At any rate, the file sounded really bad, like dirty vinyl. I now have re set the iTunes preferences window to 24/96 and direct sound. It seems that this arrangement sounds best for all files in iTunes, which include many in 16/44 as well as 24/96. I suspect that since the preference, when set to 24/192, actually played, even though my X-FI only accepts up to 24/96, that iTunes was not up sampling anything, but just using more computer power for the task. I suspect this power need was in conflict with other computer needs.

 

[teofilrocks]

Quote:

It is possible for iTunes to do bit-perfect output, at least on OS X, but it does not support dynamically changing its output if you have a library that has a mixture of sample rates, rather than just 44.1kHz files. (bit-depth doesn't matter)

If you have your system configured in such a way that playing back 44.1 files in iTunes is bit-perfect, then playing back 48kHz or others will not be - at least not without an external utility such as Amarra handling the sample rate switching.

There's also BitPerfect from the Mac App Store which is only $10 and runs behind iTunes and does the actual playing. It detects the bit depth and sampling rate of the track and switches your system audio output settings automagically. Don't have to worry about manual configuration, up/down sampling, or leaving the iTunes interface. I think I like all of that.

 

[sterling1]

Does that app work for Windows 8?

 

[teofilrocks]

Quote:

Does that app work for Windows 8?

No, the BitPerfect app is only for OSX. I'm a little out of my league with Windows audio, but I thought WASAPI did bit-perfect audio in Windows 8?

 

[sterling1]

I now have reset my iTunes playback preference section to WAS @ 24/96. Listening a few minutes ago to Jane Monheit's "Home" album, which I downloaded from HDtracks @ 24/96, I am confident I am hearing the best sound that I have ever heard from computer audio.  One of the tunes on that album I had earlier downloaded from iTunes. That 256k 16/44 file, sounds real good too. In fact, I don't think I can distinguish the iTunes file from the HDtracks file. At any rate, with WAS, so far, no dropouts or other distortions.

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

If they don't sound the same, one of them is not bit-perfect. It isn't JRiver.
You should probably just output 24-bit directly, rather than 16/44. If the output is unchanged and bit-perfect, the only difference between 16-bit and 24-bit output is some extra zeros to pad the file to 24-bit.

If the output is not bit-perfect (volume is not at 100%, EQ or volume normalization is running etc.) then 24-bit leaves more headroom to make adjustments.

If you choose to upsample, then whether you let iTunes or other music software handle it, or the sound card/DAC, could potentially make an audible difference.

That is your opinion. My subjective findings after have owning all the different music players is they all have a flavor of sorts. And Amarra sounds the best to me.

 

[sterling1]

Well, it seems, that since all of my music in iTunes is not resting there at 24/96, some of my music is being up sampled through my external sound card. According to my pre/pro LED message, it is receiving a 24/96 signal. But, even when playing 256k 16/44 files up sampled to 24/96, I do not hear any distortion, everything sounds great. Perhaps, I could replace my X-FI HD with another USB to S/PDIF interface which does not up sample. I do not think my X-FI HD is capable of switching from one bit rate to another without me manually doing it. Of course, I can manually switch both the iTunes and X-FI preferences but that is somewhat inconvenient. And, since,  there appears to be no downside to leaving my settings set for 24/96, whether up sampling or not, I think I'll just get back to enjoying the music instead of trying to make my grass greener.

 

[StudioSound]

That is your opinion. My subjective findings after have owning all the different music players is they all have a flavor of sorts. And Amarra sounds the best to me.

It's not an opinion. If they sound different, one of them is not doing bit-perfect decoding. Fact.

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

It's not an opinion. If they sound different, one of them is not doing bit-perfect decoding. Fact.

Wrong. There's many reasons for why they could sound different and as Steve Eddy so astutely pointed:
 
"You can have a DAC that alters the sound but is still bit-perfect. In addition to the quantized values of the samples, you also have the TIMING of those samples. If your timing is enough off, such as by way of jitter, you can alter the sound while remaining bit-perfect."
 
I do not understand why there is so much stubborn thinking around this issue.

 

[MoonUnit]

Quote:

Wrong. There's many reasons for why they could sound different and as Steve Eddy so astutely pointed:
 
"You can have a DAC that alters the sound but is still bit-perfect. In addition to the quantized values of the samples, you also have the TIMING of those samples. If your timing is enough off, such as by way of jitter, you can alter the sound while remaining bit-perfect."
 
I do not understand why there is so much stubborn thinking around this issue.

 
Uh, the timing of the DAC oscillator is not under software control.