[thread]

Right, that was pretty much my point exactly, WarriorAnt. So without a need for the fancy dithering/anti-aliasing functions that you linked to, I'm still left wondering what magical feature it is that leaves some audiophiles preferring the sound of one app over another, if any.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Right, that was pretty much my point exactly, WarriorAnt. So without a need for the fancy dithering/anti-aliasing functions that you linked to, I'm still left wondering what magical feature it is that leaves some audiophiles preferring the sound of one app over another, if any.

dithering/anti-aliasing is not upsampling and down sampling.

 

[thread]

You're right. I'm confusing my terms. Dithering is used when changing bit depths -- not sampling rates.

My open question still stands, though. All of these issues (converting bit depth OR sampling rates) become moot the moment you have the entire chain dialed into a particular resolution. Am I to understand that nobody knows, cable-style, exactly what constitutes the "audible" differences between apps?

That's cool, of course; I just felt it was an interesting question to ask.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

You're right. I'm confusing my terms. Dithering is used when changing bit depths -- not sampling rates.
My open question still stands, though. All of these issues (converting bit depth OR sampling rates) become moot the moment you have the entire chain dialed into a particular resolution. Am I to understand that nobody knows, cable-style, exactly what constitutes the "audible" differences between apps?
That's cool, of course; I just felt it was an interesting question to ask.

It does not become moot it. They are exactly the things that make the difference or at least some of the difference and to understand them is a lengthy process of explanation that I'm pretty sure no one wants to take the time to lay it all out which is why no one is getting into it.

 

[turimbar1]

Quote:

You're right. I'm confusing my terms. Dithering is used when changing bit depths -- not sampling rates.
My open question still stands, though. All of these issues (converting bit depth OR sampling rates) become moot the moment you have the entire chain dialed into a particular resolution. Am I to understand that nobody knows, cable-style, exactly what constitutes the "audible" differences between apps?
That's cool, of course; I just felt it was an interesting question to ask.

Many times they use different sampling algorithms along with the upsampling/dithering etc aspects of it. I understand that you are wary, you probably root for NWavGuy in all his battles and talk down to cable and vinyl people.
 
But the truth is, there is a difference in these players, you can try them all for free right now. ALL OF THEM (even pure music). You could get your significant other to set up a completely blind test and listen for yourself, and then enlighten us on our success or folly.
 
I don't believe in cables, I believe in getting the best bang for my buck, and that is "free" right now, and they sound better than Itunes especially given that price. Many people on here were just as wary and questioning as you are, it really differs from player to player, and you would have to talk to the developers' coders to get the skinny on exactly what is happening underneath the hood. Upsampling does seem to help bring out the ambiance, crispness, and separation (more noticeable in certain songs), my comp does not support integer mode so I do not know if that helps.
 
So please do your own tests and tell us the difference if any, almost everyone on here has done so and have distinct opinions on what they hear. 
 
I have never looked at the source code for any of these players, nor have I ever worked with audio-processing algorithms, If you truly want definitive answers, I would ask someone who does and has.
 
 

 

[Hero Kid]

Quote:

[...] My open question still stands, though. [...]

Not my post but here we go:
 
Here are some of the non-snake-oil reasons you asked for:
1. Automatic sample rate switching (as you noted). Briefly, iTunes has to be closed, Audio MIDI reset, and iTunes then reopened in order to play a track with a different sample frequency bit-perfectly. This one is the major problem that all of those address.
2. Memory play. Many of the alternatives you mention can load the entire track into memory prior to playing. The idea is this removes disk i/o from the playback sequence, possibly improving playback sound quality.
3. Ability to "Hog" an output device. Essentially, you can play your music without having any other sound or notification beep or anything contaminate playback. (Some also offer integer mode playback in 10.6, with hog mode a prerequisite of this).
4. Upsampling and other tricks that iTunes doesn't do.
None of these things are "required" for serious listening, and there is nothing wrong with iTunes per se as a player. These are better understood as enhancements and conveniences.
5. Changing the way the CPU cycles information (music) and sends it to your DAC. By creating an "open" stream per se, free from interruptions/changes many believe you can achieve higher quality music playback.
 
Also try reading this: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Bit-perfect-player-having-differnt-sound-signatures
It has some interesting arguments/discussion.
 
There is a lot on the topic. I suggest you stop asking rhetorical questions and go and do some reading.
 
In the end it is obviously subjective. People may claim they have measurements that prove A is better than B, but people will always dispute such measurements in favor for what they believe/hear. In the end does it really matter what creates a difference (if any)? As posters have kept saying you can easily demo the players on your own system, using your own ears and decide for yourself. If you hear a difference - great, if you don't - no harm done. 

 

[AppleheadMay]

 
Quote:

2. Memory play. Many of the alternatives you mention can load the entire track into memory prior to playing. The idea is this removes disk i/o from the playback sequence, possibly improving playback sound quality.

 
This is something that is also used in the expensive  PS Audio PWT, PWD and Bridge. They have memory built in for the sole purpose of buffering.
You also use it when playing back video from the Internet for example, to get a steady stream. I'd say it surely is an improvement.
 
And indeed, the convenience of automatic sample rate switching to me is worth quite a €, yet you have it for only €3,99 with BitPerfect.

 

[Anthony1]

Quote:

How does Fidelia sound compared to Audivana plus? Is there a sonic difference between the two (I note they both use the same iZotope 64 bit SRC)? 
 
I have downloaded the trial versions of Audivana plus and Amarra and I note that Amarra's SQ is better as compared to Audivana plus in my system. I'm interested in your thoughts on Fidelia's SQ.
 

I deleted Amarra becase of the buggy behaviour on it and the UI wasnt my cup of tea so I couldnt give you an honest SQ comparison. IMO Audirvana Plus SQ is on par with Fidelia on my system but I just prefer Fidelia (just).
 

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

I finally upgraded to OSX 10.7.2 Lion, and with Amarra Mini 2.2 and iTunes set for 32 bit mode it seems to work fine, as long as I don't do anything else at the same time on my 4Gb 2.4Ghz core 2 due MacBook Pro. With some music the difference isnt that great, but with most music I can accurately pick out when listening to Amarra Mini vs iTunes alone.

I will try comparing to BitPerfect sometime, but I'm in no rush.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

I finally upgraded to OSX 10.7.2 Lion, and with Amarra Mini 2.2 and iTunes set for 32 bit mode it seems to work fine, as long as I don't do anything else at the same time on my 4Gb 2.4Ghz core 2 due MacBook Pro. With some music the difference isnt that great, but with most music I can accurately pick out when listening to Amarra Mini vs iTunes alone.
I will try comparing to BitPerfect sometime, but I'm in no rush.

I haven't gone over to Lion yet.  Why do you have iTunes in 32 bit instead of 64 is it something in Lion that is a problem?

 

[Austin Morrow]

Quote:

I haven't gone over to Lion yet.  Why do you have iTunes in 32 bit instead of 64 is it something in Lion that is a problem?

No, from what I know (and have), iTunes is running 64 bit in iTunes...

 

[AppleheadMay]

Quote:

I haven't gone over to Lion yet.  Why do you have iTunes in 32 bit instead of 64 is it something in Lion that is a problem?

Yep, if you have Lion and iTunes 10.4.2 or higher you get a message you should run iTunes in 32-bit mode when you install Amarra.
I see that version 2.3 of Amarra came out this week. I wonder if it solves the problem. Since I used up my trial time, is there anyone who can test this?

 

[vrln]

Has anyone checked if the new Amarra version resets the trial period? If it does I could give it another shot, since the changelog says stability and user interface are both improved. The problem with Amarra is that it´s too buggy to evaluate properly, so from a purely business sense they should reset the trial period with every significant release. People won´t buy it blind if they´ve had bad experiences with a previous trial version.

 

[iamoneagain]

Quote:

Yep, if you have Lion and iTunes 10.4.2 or higher you get a message you should run iTunes in 32-bit mode when you install Amarra.
I see that version 2.3 of Amarra came out this week. I wonder if it solves the problem. Since I used up my trial time, is there anyone who can test this?

Wow, just tried 2.3.3 and I still can't get past the activation.  Also, seeing that horrible activation interface gives me no confidence of what comes next.  Just not worth my time to get this issue fixed.
 

 

[AppleheadMay]

Yeah, I'm not trying it again before they have full Lion and latest iTunes support.
I'll mail them again then to get a new trial.