Pure music vs audirvana plus#

I do agree with others Audirvana offers lots of control, if you need it. I still hear difference but it is not as pronounced as years ago, of course it might be my ears, but I'm still decades from retirement. When I repeated some of these tests less than a year ago I was surprised how 320 of aac has improved, it has to be a really well recorded/sound engineered to find differences. I could hear the difference between 320 or mp3 and aac files and it was 'sad' to find out that that I could hear the difference between 320 aac and lossless - it made me realize, it is going to be expensive. I'd done a lot of A/B testing between aac/mp3/flac/alac many years ago. iTunes improved tremendously from its baby days. Out ears are also not a constant, they adjust. Previously tried most of the other players, but somehow even if I hear some difference in sound I come back to iTunes and do not feel I'm missing on anything. I did the same last weekend with iTunes JRiver for Mac, still did not find anything compelling to abandon iTunes, but I'll try again. Trying something new, makes us to pay attention to details. This last situation happens some times to me in bad recorded close mike women vocals. forum found iTunes to be an extraordinary digital player and they don't need any more.Īs Professor Scott just mentioned on this thread 'Audirvana seems a tad brighter in the midrange to me', and I believe he is not wrong at this, since Audirvana could reveal with more detail what is hidden by iTunes from the recorded music it self. Third (the last but not the least), some few people on this C.A. Second, a lot of my musician friends (no all of them) listen more for the quality of the musicians playing, then the music execution (as players) than for the SQ of the music alone. If yes, you are right (to my ears) I also found there is not an incredible improvement on SQ, that I found like when I play music under Audirvana alone. This step (Audirvana) seems more dubious than many I've taken in the past.įirst, I don't know if you are listening to Audirvana under iTunes integration. I dislike the term audiophile as I dislike labels in general. Bitperfect with itunes worked but was overly bright on my setup. Audirvana just worked well as a standalone player. Fidelia with the crossfeed hdx plugin was interesting but not worth the tweaking per song.

Pure music vs audirvana plus#

I've been a musician and I've spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours (and many dollars) in the quest for pleasing sound. I tried all three, and ended up liking Audirvana plus the best. I say this in the interest of having a dialog. I wont say that one is better than the other, but I will say that I vastly prefer Amarra with my setup. The decay, dimensionality and 'room' sound is greater. All instruments share one space and 'interact' with one another. Are we SURE we are hearing an IMPROVEMENT? And we're not making a subjective opinion based on how cool, or how sophisticated the program is over iTunes? Amarra counters with better cohesiveness, tube-like organic sound. But if I (we) cant HEAR a difference, what real difference does it make? I'm familiar with the technical superiorities of Audirvana.