Audivana 2.0 - Finally I can ditch iTunes!

[twelvebears]

OK, so like some (many?) I have been somewhat stuck with iTunes as a music management tool (and it is, literally), because if you use a Mac, I've not found anything better. Plus of course I have iPods, iPads, iPhones... blah, blah, blah.

I avoid it for playback and use my SBT for my system listening, but for headphone duties, it has still been there.

I tried the original Audivana and thought it sounded very much better than iTunes, but I found the stand-alone player to limited in functionality, and always had playback gremlins when trying the iTunes integrated mode.

I have just upgraded to the new Audivana 2.0 which is a fully featured music player and I am very impressed. It sounds as good as the original (at least) but now I can happily sit and have excellent sounds while also doing a bit of music file management - genre sorting being my current obsession.

In fact apart from syncing an iPod for the car, I haven't even opened iTunes since I installed it, which is a good measure of it's usability.

I think the upgrade cost is a bit steep, but personally I'm very pleased with it and just wondered if anyone else had tried it out or formed any opinions?

[Bonky]

Thanks for that; very interesting!

I will try it soon and report back.

By

Richard.

[Bonky]

I already have v1.5 so it's interesting comparing the two versions.

It's only been playing for a few hours but the SQ does appear to be a (slight) step-up on the previous version. Perhaps it's a little less tolerant of poorly recorded (and ripped!) tracks.

I'm more concerned with the music management, expecting it to be an alternative to iTunes. At present, only some art work was imported and the tracks are just laid out in at the alphabetical order of the artists. Genres don't exist on mine and the 'playlist' button does nothing. With some albums the tracks have lost their titles - there are just track numbers.

I also have 2 and sometimes 4 copies of most tracks. (I synced with two music folders -iTunes and a 'high-end' music folder that I normally use for streaming to a Squeezebox Touch', so I can understand some tracks having a duplicate - but not 4 copies!).

Early days....I'll experiment some more.

BW

Richard.

[twelvebears]

Hi Richard.

Did you add you music folder AND select your iTunes XML file? I did that to start with and got duplicates, but once I only used the iTunes library and sync'd, it was fine.

I have all my art work fine in the album view.

I would try using the iTunes sync option and not adding the music folders. You just have to resync occasionally.

Let me know if you still have trouble

[Bonky]

Hi Steve, thanks.

I don't think I added the iTunes xml files as in 'prefs/itunes sync, it is there as an option that I believe I didn't use.

Perhaps I should look in the Audirvana folder... (Edit: just looked - strange formats - not open the files)

Would you advocate trashing the whole folder and starting over again - just using the iTunes library as you did? It does't seem the preferred option in the manual.

Thanks again,

Richard

[Werner Berghofer]

Richard,

It's only been playing for a few hours but the SQ does appear to be a (slight) step-up on the previous version.
an interesting read: Measurements: Bit-perfect audiophile music players (http://archimago.blogspot.co.at/2013/05/measurements-bit-perfect-audiophile.html)

Quote: Conclusion: With bit-perfect playback, all the player software performed equivalently.

A personal note: I don’t understand why anyone would voluntarily switch to a software player


which does not support the “sort as …” tag as iTunes does (for example I prefer Patricia Barber to be listed under “B” and The Rolling Stones under “R”),
costs additional money, while iTunes comes free with any Mac,
for which no remote control software for iOS is available, and
offers no audibly better playback quality (demonstrable and measurable).

Werner.

[Bonky]

Richard,

an interesting read: Measurements: Bit-perfect audiophile music players (http://archimago.blogspot.co.at/2013/05/measurements-bit-perfect-audiophile.html)

Quote: Conclusion: With bit-perfect playback, all the player software performed equivalently.


A personal note: I don’t understand why anyone would voluntarily switch to a software player


which does not support the “sort as …” tag as iTunes does (for example I prefer Patricia Barber to be listed under “B” and The Rolling Stones under “R”),
costs additional money, while iTunes comes free with any Mac,
for which no remote control software for iOS is available, and
offers no audibly better playback quality (demonstrable and measurable).

Werner.

Thanks again Werner.


Being trained as a scientist (well, a biologist), my first stance is healthy scepticism, but scepticism tinged with optimism - if you know what I mean.

The whole objective/subjective topic has been aired many times on these forums. I recall a few years ago when I first joined, giving links to Ben Goldacre's excellent site on 'BadScience' (sic) where he explores at length the importance and power of the placebo effect. One member's reply (and I think it was one of the mods) was that my post was 'insulting', so I've stopped trying to explain and realised that the forum is entitled 'the ART of Sound' and not the Science of Sound for a very good reason.

The analogy of good wine being measured by taste buds rather than a chemistry set is, perhaps, a good one.

Although I cry 'snake oil' at so many innovations, I'm willing, given constraints of time and money, to give things a go. I believe in the past, you have also doubted that our ear/brains can detect any improvements over 'Red Book' sound, and yet, even at my advanced age (66) I think I can hear differences in downloads of the same track from the Linn free give-away recordings, (http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-preview-track-2014.aspx?__utma=237059741.1676773838.1405365255.1 416994212.1417252635.15&__utmb=237059741.1.10.1417252635&__utmc=237059741&__utmx=-&__utmz=237059741.1416851405.12.2.utmcsr=Linn%20Ema il|utmccn=b2386e2c29-Linn_Xmas_24_11_2014|utmcmd=email|utmctr=0_517fad5 333-b2386e2c29-317273953&__utmv=-&__utmk=251051717)


or here (http://www.linnrecords.com/recording-preview-track-2014.aspx?__utma=237059741.1676773838.1405365255.1 416994212.1417252635.15&__utmb=237059741.1.10.1417252635&__utmc=237059741&__utmx=-&__utmz=237059741.1416851405.12.2.utmcsr=Linn%20Ema il|utmccn=b2386e2c29-Linn_Xmas_24_11_2014|utmcmd=email|utmctr=0_517fad5 333-b2386e2c29-317273953&__utmv=-&__utmk=251051717)

Many record producers and hardware manufacturers are now bringing-out 'better-than-red-book' specs because of perceived improvements.

My gripe with iTunes (and I'm pro-Apple in many areas) is that FLAC and some other high-quality formats are not supported and that changes in bit-rate etc are not managed automatically; otherwise, it would be near-perfect for my needs and tastes.

I'm sure there's a whole can of worms here (digital music..just 0000s and 11111s ... so cables etc can't make a difference) and we're in danger of being trolled.

Thanks again; very interesting.

Richard.

PS. I downloaded the trial version of A+2

[Werner Berghofer]

Richard,

I believe in the past, you have also doubted that our ear/brains can detect any improvements over 'Red Book' sound […]
yes, you remember right, that’s me ;-)

I’m really convinced that all this “hi-rez” hype is just a marketing ploy. Keep in mind that one needs complete (!) audio chains (from DAC to loudspeakers/headphones) that are capable of processing dynamic ranges of 130 dB (24 bit depth) and ultrasound frequencies up to 48 kHz (48,000 Hertz, sampled at 96 kHz). Also our brains and ears need to be able to perceive and process this type of audio information to fully enjoy the benefits of 24/96 or higher resolution audio.

Our economic system is based on “bigger, faster, more”. Marketing and advertising happily communicate this message. Neil Young uses crappy, vintage, analogue equipment to record his songs in a phone booth, but of course his music sounds superior in 24/192 FLAC format played on a Pono in a car ;-)

• Kirk McElhearn: Music, not sound: Why high-resolution music is a marketing ploy (http://www.mcelhearn.com/music-not-sound-why-high-resolution-music-is-a-marketing-ploy/)


My gripe with iTunes (and I'm pro-Apple in many areas) is that FLAC and some other high-quality formats are not supported and that changes in bit-rate etc are not managed automatically; otherwise, it would be near-perfect for my needs and tastes.

I understand. My whole audio library contains exclusively 16 bit/44.1 kHz ALAC files, so I don’t have the need of automatic changing the bit and the sampling rate or support for FLAC format. Did all the Apple/iTunes bashers ever realize that also Microsoft Windows does not natively support FLAC files?

• Kirk McElhearn: Why iTunes doesn’t support FLAC files (http://www.mcelhearn.com/why-itunes-doesnt-support-flac-files/).

Werner.

[twelvebears]

Hi Steve, thanks.

Would you advocate trashing the whole folder and starting over again - just using the iTunes library as you did? It does't seem the preferred option in the manual.

Richard

Yes I would, that's what I did and it sorted my issues.

Basically the option I took was NOT to select any music folders and then select and sync with the iTunes XML files in the iTunes library folder - everything then syncs perfectly including any iTunes playlists.

You will need to periodically hit the 'sync' button but after the first time this is quick, and any changes (meta data) made in Audivana are pushed back into iTunes also.

If you have other hi-res files not in iTunes, you would need to add this folder location, but you should be able to convert any files to high-res ALAC with something like XLD and then they can all live alongside your other iTunes music.

All I have done is add (24/96) or (24/88.2) to the end of the album name as an easy may to locate/filter my high-res music within my library.

Regarding artwork, I have embedded this into the files themselves - something iTunes doesn't do by default. So if you haven't done this and are not syncing with your iTunes library, that would explain your lack of artwork.

[twelvebears]

Just for the record, writing “Audivana” instead of “Audirvana” was just a spelling mistake.....

[Bonky]

Just for the record, writing “Audivana” instead of “Audirvana” was just a spelling mistake.....

Apologies - I dislike making mistakes.

BW

Richard

[twelvebears]

Apologies - I dislike making mistakes.

BW

Richard

The mistake was mine Richard, not yours..... :)

[Stratmangler]

Just for the record, writing “Audivana” instead of “Audirvana” was just a spelling mistake.....

What's this about smelling pistakes? :eyebrows:

[twelvebears]

What's this about smelling pistakes? :eyebrows:

I know eh? Ducking spell-check.....

[webby]

Richard,

an interesting read: Measurements: Bit-perfect audiophile music players (http://archimago.blogspot.co.at/2013/05/measurements-bit-perfect-audiophile.html)

Quote: Conclusion: With bit-perfect playback, all the player software performed equivalently.

A personal note: I don’t understand why anyone would voluntarily switch to a software player


which does not support the “sort as …” tag as iTunes does (for example I prefer Patricia Barber to be listed under “B” and The Rolling Stones under “R”),
costs additional money, while iTunes comes free with any Mac,
for which no remote control software for iOS is available, and
offers no audibly better playback quality (demonstrable and measurable).

Werner.

I'm inclined to agree Werner.

[mikmas]

Interesting claims made on this thread and the 'test' Werner linked to - although I must say the rationale behind the set-up used for the test completely escapes me:

Quote:
"MacBook Pro (*running audio player*) --> shielded USB --> TEAC UD-501 DAC --> shielded 6' RCA --> E-MU 0404USB --> shielded USB --> Win8 laptop"

The digital signal is output from the Mac via USB then converted to analogue by the Teac DAC and then passed to the E-MU for conversion back to digital so it can be measured on a Windows machine - is this 'scientific rigour' :scratch:

[robtweed]

Yes mikmas, that set-up does seem odd if the purpose of the exercise was to measure the parameters of the digital stream leaving the Mac. Converting it to and from the analogue domain does seem to me to suggest that what you'll primarily measure is the parameters resulting from that conversion chain rather than what left the Mac in the first place.

If it had been me I think I'd have plugged the Mac's USB into the E-MU and then routed the signal to the PC via the E-MU's SP/DIF or Toslink output, keeping the signal digital all the way. I've just recently sold my E-MU 0404 so I can't confirm that would work (I could probably test it on my SD USBPre 2 though). However even if it did, it's possible the SP/DIF or Toslink output would be downsampled/re-sampled by the E-MU so again you'd probably end up measuring that process rather than what came from the Mac. The reverse could be done on a newer Mac - Toslink out to E-MU with the PC connected to the E-MU's USB port - again at the risk of some re-sampling in the E-MU.

Must be a better / simpler way to analyse that digital output from the Mac without some other box in between though?

Then again perhaps I'm missing something in the purpose of that study?