Apple releases iTunes 11

[Andre Marc]

I'll bet the house they had the midi setting wrong if the difference was dramatic. Have done this comparison with many experienced people, and in the Ayre room one year at a show -- nobody could ID which was which.

Should add that I would love it if a $50 or $250 piece of software made a solid difference -- given the cost of my system, it would be a no brainer.

No, the rep clearly knew what he was doing. Quite frankly, the differences in iTunes with and without premium
software for bit perfect playback is not up for debate.

I think Ayre makes superb stuff, but to be honest, their rooms are never set up correctly, and they never sound impressive at shows. They
seem more bent on displaying their gear then demonstrating the sound, so I am not surprised no one heard a difference.

iTunes is subpar digital playback IMO. It is worth exactly what they charge for it.

 

[Andre Marc]

I agree Bob

I just haven't found the same with itunes but do agree that manually changing the midi settings is a PITA

Steve, this one I would go out on a limb for. iTunes sounds about as good as a 1980's CD player.

This is not a matter of taste, like the differences in tubes, cables, or speaker placement.

 

[Andre Marc]

I agree Bob

I just haven't found the same with itunes but do agree that manually changing the midi settings is a PITA

BTW, just to clarify..what I have been saying about iTunes is in the context of a high end system. For headphone, casual, or secondary
listening, iTunes will do just fine.

 

[rblnr]

Steve, this one I would go out on a limb for. iTunes sounds about as good as a 1980's CD player.

This is not a matter of taste, like the differences in tubes, cables, or speaker placement.

Well let's just leave it at 'there's a lot of debate about this'. Output from iTunes is bitperfect, but the debate is partly on whether that's the whole story. Amir made the point in another thread that if you buy into many of the explanations made by the software companies and others who claim legit audible differences, then it can be argued that no two computers will sound alike as everyone has different applications, plug-ins, configurations etc. on their machine that might all come in to play.

We've had different experiences here. Flipping in and out Amarra, Bit Perfect, etc.; I've never heard the night 'n day differences (1980s CD player) you find and the descriptions I've read from those who find differences are in the 'very subtle' spectrum.

 

[Andre Marc]

Well let's just leave it at 'there's a lot of debate about this'. Output from iTunes is bitperfect, but the debate is partly on whether that's the whole story. Amir made the point in another thread that if you buy into many of the explanations made by the software companies and others who claim legit audible differences, then it can be argued that no two computers will sound alike as everyone has different applications, plug-ins, configurations etc. on their machine that might all come in to play. We've had different experiences here.

Well said, and you are correct about all the variables. Although I must say the Computer Audio guys really take it to a new
level....

Are you aware of the $10 app for iTunes called BitPerfect? It has been called a game changer.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

ALAC went open source last year:

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/27/apples-alac-codec-is-now-open-source/

and for CDs ripped to iTunes, I hear no difference between it and, say, using Amarra, with a good DAC. Main thing to me is having a program that automatically switches the sample/bit rate to match the file being played, which iTunes does not. You have to manually do this in the Midi preference pane. A pain. Logitech Server switches automatically (and feeds to Squeezeboxes) and integrates virtually any file type, FLAC included, into one master library that includes whatever you have in iTunes. It's a painless solution.

But yeah, I do wish they'd incorporate FLAC. However, more than any other system/brand, Apple stuff just works, and works like you expect it to. And part of that comes from not playing every format out there, audio and video. It's a tradeoff I'm fine with.

A $30 plug-in will do this for you, and a free one will convert FLAC files.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

BTW, Tim, just focusing on sound..I was in the Vienna Acoustics room at CES this year. The rep had a beautiful system set up
and his source was a Mac/Itunes/Pure Music. It sounded ravishing.

I asked him, totally out of curiosity, to disengage Pure Music.

The difference was absolutely mind blowing. He was playing a very well recorded violin piece.
With Pure Music, the violin and strings were sweet, seductive..all wood and resin.

With iTunes, it sounded harsh, grainy, absolutely horrible.

It literally emptied the room out.

Was it a high-res piece that downsampled when Pure Music was disengaged?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I've tested Amarra and Pure Music against iTunes. Using native 16/44.1, there is no difference I can hear.

Tim

 

[docvale]

I've tested Amarra and Pure Music against iTunes. Using native 16/44.1, there is no difference I can hear.

Tim

A friend of mine installed Pure Music and we tested it in his system (PeachTree Decco, B&W bookshelf, iMac). At standard resolution we couldn't find any difference between iTunes alone and with Pure Music. With high resolution files, we noticed a better note decay with Pure Music (but just in a very focused listening).

A different experience:
During a demo, we listened to a high performance system (all Naim and Wilson Sophia III) comparing iTunes on Win, iTunes on MacOS, another software running only on Mac and the Naim UnitiServe. We compared just redbook rips.
During the demo, I heard comments about impressive differences, tracks that where unlistenable on iTunes on Win and bla bla bla. I heard no difference (BTW, everything was sounding really good), but I might be deaf or don't know what.

My 2 cents:
iTunes is THE interface that inspired every other music player. It's free and it can be functionally improved (meaning playing FLAC files or switching automatically the sampling rates of the files) spending very little money (starting from ~$30).
In a world of cables and equipment racks that cost as much as cars, I consider iTunes a good product.

 

[Andre Marc]

Was it a high-res piece that downsampled when Pure Music was disengaged?

Tim

Standard 44.1 Khz CD rips in AIFF.

 

[Andre Marc]

I've tested Amarra and Pure Music against iTunes. Using native 16/44.1, there is no difference I can hear.

Tim

I don't doubt you. But I clearly heard a dramatic differences. And believe me, I am the guy who sniffs at audiophiles who hear "dramatic" differences.

 

[Andre Marc]

A $30 plug-in will do this for you, and a free one will convert FLAC files.

Tim

Which plug in Tim?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I was thinking of Pure Music, Andre, but I see it's $129! I tried the demo, but didn't buy. Evidently I have a photogenic memory.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't doubt you. But I clearly heard a dramatic differences. And believe me, I am the guy who sniffs at audiophiles who hear "dramatic" differences.

You heard dramatic differences on 16/44.1 files? How do you account for that?

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

I was thinking of Pure Music, Andre, but I see it's $129! I tried the demo, but didn't buy. Evidently I have a photogenic memory.

Tim

No worries. BTW, the way Pure Music, Amarra, and Audrivana work is that they actually trick iTunes into thinking it is playing a FLAC file by creating a ghost file, or as they call it, a book mark, which is the FLAC file compressed (no in musical quality) so it is roughly 3% of the original file.

The only way to actually play FLAC files in iTunes is a faulty plug in called FLUKE. Stay away at all costs. It destroys iTunes ability to tag or retrieve art. It is a real stinker. If one only uses iTunes, AIFF or ALAC is best I guess.

 

[Andre Marc]

You heard dramatic differences on 16/44.1 files? How do you account for that?

Tim

Trust, me if I was not there and heard it for my self I would also be skeptical.

http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/1072

 

[Steve Williams]

That's a dead link at my end Andre

 

[Andre Marc]

That's a dead link at my end Andre

sorry Steve, just corrected it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Trust, me if I was not there and heard it for my self I would also be skeptical.

http://audiofederation.com/blog/archives/1072

So, have you been able to come up with a logical reason why you'd hear a difference between one lossless file and another on the same system?

Tim

 

[Andre Marc]

So, have you been able to come up with a logical reason why you'd hear a difference between one lossless file and another on the same system?

Tim

The only logical reason would be is that Pure Music does sound better than iTunes. I dunno.

For the record I personally have no experience with iTunes/Pure Music in my system.

I will say that I have spoken to at least a dozen reviewers who said the difference with Pure Music/Audirvana/Amarra
is very easy to hear.

For the record, we must clarify that when these programs are integrated into iTunes, they only use its cataloging
feature, and iTunes does NOT playback the file.