Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-bit, macOS - Which player ?
#1
I acquired a couple of 24-bit tracks recently. I decided it was a good time to try some of the players others have recommended. After some fiddling with configurations based on prior threads from this forum, I am happy to report results and need further help.

What I have found so far is 24-bit provides some improvement, but only marginally.

Also, each player seems to have its own sonic personality and I am not sure which is closer to the groundtruth. Perhalps none, and perhaps it also depends on the recording.

Here's what I have perceived so far:
  • iTunes + BitPerfect: BitPerfect crashes too often for this to be a reliable solution on Sierra. Also, random access to a track will desync Devialet Air and it will play garbage after this.
  • iTunes + MIDI Configurator: The sound seems natural in general (but how to tell?). The sound can be a little bit harsh sometimes.
  • Amarra: Sound closest to iTunes (and the ground truth?) as far as I can tell.
  • Audirvana+: The sound is gentler, more polished / esthetic that any of the others; but if I had to guess, I'd say it's been filtered, which reduces confidence.
As for the comparison between 16-bit/24-bit, I haven't noticed much difference on the couple of tracks that I have been going through. Except, maybe, that on louder /complex passages, the sound was a little bit harsher in 16-bit. These passages seems easier to listen to at higher volume in 24-bit, with less fatigue and less willingness to turn the volume down.

Is this similar to what other people have found?

Has anyone found a way to get closer to the groundtruth? which is, after all, for us Pro-owners, what we're after.
Reply
#2
Is iTunes + BitPerfect crashes only with 24-bit in your setup? it works great on my Mac with Sierra.

Have you tried Roon?
Reply
#3
I've tested the exact same Software as you on the exact same setup running iTunes via Devialet AIR 3 (public beta). And I also came to the exact same conclusion as you. Audirvana+ outperformed the other ones easily and by far. Crystal clear without sounding clinical or mechanic. Also the easiest to handle (in iTunes mode) together with BitPerfect. So I invested the 70€ and bought it and I am very happy with it. 

+ No dropouts whatsoever even in 24/192 while surfing Safari on Mac OS Sierra on a MacBook Air mid 2014.
+ The only one (concerning my experience) with an integer mode
+ very easy to handle.
+ sound is crystal clear and warm while not sounding cold or clinical or mechanical.

Conclusion: Go for it!
Reply
#4
(17-Dec-2016, 16:01)arcam Wrote: I acquired a couple of 24-bit tracks recently. I decided it was a good time to try some of the players others have recommended. After some fiddling with configurations based on prior threads from this forum, I am happy to report results and need further help.

What I have found so far is 24-bit provides some improvement, but only marginally.

Also, each player seems to have its own sonic personality and I am not sure which is closer to the groundtruth. Perhalps none, and perhaps it also depends on the recording.

Here's what I have perceived so far:
  • iTunes + BitPerfect: BitPerfect crashes too often for this to be a reliable solution on Sierra. Also, random access to a track will desync Devialet Air and it will play garbage after this.
  • iTunes + MIDI Configurator: The sound seems natural in general (but how to tell?). The sound can be a little bit harsh sometimes.
  • Amarra: Sound closest to iTunes (and the ground truth?) as far as I can tell.
  • Audirvana+: The sound is gentler, more polished / esthetic that any of the others; but if I had to guess, I'd say it's been filtered, which reduces confidence.
As for the comparison between 16-bit/24-bit, I haven't noticed much difference on the couple of tracks that I have been going through. Except, maybe, that on louder /complex passages, the sound was a little bit harsher in 16-bit. These passages seems easier to listen to at higher volume in 24-bit, with less fatigue and less willingness to turn the volume down.

Is this similar to what other people have found?

Has anyone found a way to get closer to the groundtruth? which is, after all, for us Pro-owners, what we're after.

I find it difficult to argument on 16bit vs. 24bit even if you get both rips of a dual layer SACD which I have a lot of ('fat lady' ripping machine  Wink ). You can not know how each 16bit and 24bit layer were produced/mastered.

As we know from tuning our systems it might be just one different cable changed during mastering/copying each layer that has such an impact on the sound that comparing 16bit/24bit is useless.

The best way I find comparing 16/24 bit recordings is to use a 24bit rip/recording and convert it down to 16/44.1 with some software like Korg Audiogate or else and then compare it. Sure there is also a difference in the sampling algorithms of these Conversion-Software so each will sound different.
I can also imagine that if you release a 24bit recording you give more enthusiasm to the technical process and use better equipment hence the 24bit release sounds better than the 'old' 16bit.

gui
"Oh, you can buy the other. But then it is a cost intensive learning process"
berlin
Reply
#5
(17-Dec-2016, 17:11)Xander Wrote: Have you tried Roon?

^^

I've tried all of the above and some others.

I could never go back now, it's Roon all the way for me. Even some of it's limitations don't bother me like in other software since the developers are expanding the product so quickly I know sone day it will meet all my needs. You get multi-room too, on devices costing like £50 and just a bit if DIY time.

>>> 1st Place Award: Devialet, last decades most disappointing technology purchase.  <<<

Reply
#6
I have used Audirvana, iTunes, JRIVER, Pure Music, and Roon. 

Some judge a music player solely by music playback quality. Others by feature sets such as up sampling. Still others for music library management capabilities. And/or what hardware is supported for client playback (MacOS, Windows, Linux, IOS, Android, etc...).

I think you will be happy with any of the options you listed above. In my case I have settled on Roon.

As to redbook versus high quality PCM versus DSD, I have found usually the mixing and mastering ( and the music ) are more important in the end than the file format chosen. YMMV.
Roon ROCK on Intel NUC6i5SYH/Ethernet | VPI Avenger | Devialet 440 Pro CI | Vivid Audio Giya G3 | Auralic Aires Mini | Synology 1812+ NAS
SXSW, US
Reply
#7
Personally I don't hear a difference between 16-bit and 24-bit.
It could be expectation bias since I know that none of my recordings use all of the 16-bit dynamic range, never mind 24-bit.

I do use 24-bit when recording though, since it is much easier to set levels without taking a risk of clipping on an unexpected peak.

I have taken a 24/192 recording, had it converted it to 16/48 then back again to 24/192 and can hear no difference between the files.
I did it this way to eliminate the following from the comparison :-
1 any difference  in mastering between recordings
2 any difference between the way the DAC deals with different files.
3 192kHz is a multiple of 48 so the conversion does not require the potential sound changing mathematics in conversion which 44.1 requires but the bandwidth difference between 44.1 and 48 is only ~ ⅛ octave.

By converting down then back up any information which is potentially in a 24/192 file but not in a 16/48 is removed in the process, so the second file still does not contain the information though the first does.

I did this with 2 pieces of classical music.

I have used many different replay software over the years but none are very convenient for classical music logging so, since I hear no benefit from higher resolution files I have largely gone back to LPs and CDs.
The few files I have bought I have either burned to CD or stream using bitperfect/iTunes/Air
Devialet Original d'Atelier 44 Core, Job Pre/225, Goldmund PH2, Goldmund Reference/T3f /Ortofon A90, Goldmund Mimesis 36+ & Chord Blu, iMac/Air, Lynx Theta, Tune Audio Anima, Goldmund Epilog 1&2, REL Studio. Dialog, Silver Phantoms, Branch stands, copper cables (mainly).
Oxfordshire

Reply
#8
(18-Dec-2016, 03:07)baddog Wrote: I have used Audirvana, iTunes, JRIVER, Pure Music, and Roon. 

Some judge a music player solely by music playback quality. Others by feature sets such as up sampling. Still others for music library management capabilities. And/or what hardware is supported for client playback (MacOS, Windows, Linux, IOS, Android, etc...).

Another criteria is GUI ergonomy and Pure Music did not come first in my review to say the least. YMMV
Reply
#9
(17-Dec-2016, 21:56)Hifi_swlon Wrote:
(17-Dec-2016, 17:11)Xander Wrote: Have you tried Roon?

I could never go back now, it's Roon all the way for me.

I'd love to use Roon, but my music sits on my Synology and its not powerful enough to run Roon Core and my Mac Mini is not permanently on (to save energy) and the other computers are Macbooks of various kinds, one of which could run Roon Core but it would have to be permanently on (and in the house) for the others to access Roon Core...

Anyone got a better setup to recommend?

Does Roon support 24-bit ? Does it work with AIR (3.0.1 RC macOS) ? Does it integrate with Qobuz ?
Reply
#10
(17-Dec-2016, 18:13)Elija123 Wrote: I've tested the exact same Software as you on the exact same setup running iTunes via Devialet AIR 3 (public beta). And I also came to the exact same conclusion as you. Audirvana+ outperformed the other ones easily and by far. Crystal clear without sounding clinical or mechanic.

@Elija, any config besides "DSD over PCM/1.1" ?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)