Wave Editor trounces iTunes

[audiozorro]

Not his exact words, but cfmsp is right, the pro software is much better. I suspect that soundBlade and Amarra may have similar characteristics to Wave Editor and all probably sound much better than iTunes.

 

I have so much exploring to do but this is very promising for my MacBook Pro. Thanks clay.

 

I suggest that all CA Mac users download the Wave Editor demo and post their comments here.

 

On to the next trek.

 

[serengetiplains]

I agree, az. Beats iTunes handily.

 

Notice in preferences you can specify the "converter." There are two choices, the iZotope SRC, or an Apple thingy called "Apple AUConverter." Wat dat?

 

[audioengr]

What is a safe download site for wave editor?

 

Steve N.

 

[serengetiplains]

Steve, it's here:

 

http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/waveeditor/

 

Tom

 

[markr]

... and Wave Editor DOES trounce iTunes (on Mac). .... IF you are trying to use iTunes to edit audio file characteristics, that is. If you are listening to audio files and comparing the sound of the playback from one program to the other, they sound exactly the same to me.

 

Let me qualify that statement a little bit: So far, I've only listened to it with my headphones (Senn HD650), and I've only listened to 16/44.1 material with it. Thirdly, I have not spent very much time with it yet - maybe 1/2 hour to an hour.

 

I have a 15 day trial, so if things change I'll be back to report that.

 

Thanks for the tip on this editing program az!

 

- markr

 

[Audio_ELF]

Out of interest, what hardware are you using alongside your Macbook?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I find it difficulty judge the worth of peoples comments without knowing their hardware! Oh and I'm a bit nosey too.

 

Eloise

 

[markr]

I don't mind your 'nosey-ness' at all Eloise. It is my fault for not saying what I'm using.

 

So far what I'm using is:

-MacBook Pro running OS X 10.5.6

- iTunes 8.1.1 (10)

- the Wave Editor demo

- RME Fireface 400

- Senn HD 650 cans

 

I've listened to some pieces from NIN: Ghosts, Herbie Hancock: The River, Duke Ellington: Three Suites - all of these are standard redbook-type 16/44.1 files both on the local drive and a FW800 drive.

Right now, I'm trying some 24/96 material - a DVORAK concierto that I downloaded from HDTT.

 

I've got to add that I don't hear a difference with the higher res material so far either. But I DO like the way that Wave Edit is laid out. It seem a very nice editing program especially for the moderate asking price. I have found one consistent flaw with it so far though: There seems to be a 'feature' in the Preferences dialog that makes it balk when you want to switch your sound source. It either won't do it and you have to quit the program, or you have to try it a couple of times to get it to switch. Minor really.

 

regards,

-markr

 

PS (EDIT actually): Eloise, I purposely don't use a sig line to advertise my equipment setup because I (1) hope that by not doing so, it generates further 'conversation' when it is needed, and (2) it seems a bit pretentious to me to continually list out one's gear in a sig line. That is *my* peccadillo about that - I NEVER read them (put a joke there instead please), and in fact on occasion I have asked someone who is using such a sig line what gear they are using when it was right there all along. But I was right, in that that caused even more conversation to occur!

 

[Audio_ELF]

Well I hope I don't come accross as pretentious ... I'm not trying to show off just find a reference point to be useful. Though I like your point of view too. Also you (markr) weren't using superlatives like "trouces" without any reference point.

 

If someone is saying that A trounces B, it's useful to know how they are doing comparisons. It's my belief that with any HiFi excluding extremes or badly designed / broken equipment the difference is in fractions.

 

Eloise

 

[markr]

Not you Eloise. I find that your contributions here are always a breath of fresh air and really enjoy them. I was speaking to the folks I see (not so much here on CA) out there with 5 line lists of gear in their sigs down to the interconnects. It was just an aside-type comment, and really, in the final analysis there is nothing wrong with that (large sig lines) .... I DID say that it was a peccadillo of mine, right? - I also said I don't read them, so they don't bother (unless I do read...) ...... If anyone is pretentious between the two of us, it is certainly me!

 

BTW - More hours down on this test and still on 24/96 material. Still no appreciable difference found, at least not repeatable ones. I have found however that I can quite nicely tweak some files that aren't really fully up to snuff by using my AU plugins from Logic. Pretty cool, but then that is cheating! I do like this program as an editor.

 

Humbled....

- markr

Here's a good one I found recently:

- We must remember that art is art. Still, on the other hand, water is water, isn't it? And east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, it tastes much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

 

 

 

 

[One and a half]

I ripped Jennifer Warne's "famous blue raincoat" with Sound Forge 9 to AIFF and compared the Lossless ITunes 8 version to see if iTunes ripping is at fault or could be improved. I also used dbPoweramp to rip and compare the same track and compared:

Native Apple Lossless iTunes 8.1.1

db Poweramp to Apple Lossless

SoundForge 9 to AIFF, 16/44 as well as 24/192

They all sound the same to me.

 

[markr]

.... all be over at the 'Amarra' thread commenting there? ... I didn't find the Sound Blade demo (core of Amarra's sound engine) to sound different either.

 

- markr

 

[audiozorro]

Eloise, I was using the following hardware with my MacBook Pro:

 

- Benchmark USB DAC1

- AKG 701 headphones

- Sennheiser 580HD headphones

- AudioEngine 2 speakers

 

This is not my reference audio system but it is part of my computer music server that I play continuously. The Benchmark is great for evaluating options since I can connect four different computers (although I currently only have an XP (Lynx AES16), Vista (Juli@ coaxial) towers and a MacBook Pro laptop (toslink or USB) connected) and I can easily switch between them for A/B testing. The Benchmark is also an excellent headphone amp that allows me to connect two different headphones. I use the AudioEngine 2 powered speakers for the convenience of a computer audio workstation that I don’t mind running 24/7.

 

 

[dib]

I ripped a CD using itunes, dbpoweramp , foobar and EAC. I compared them using a binary file comparison utillity. they were the same - apart from the header that doesn't matter. dbpoweramp puts something in it the others dont. the data blocks (music) were identical

 

dib

 

[Audio_ELF]

Well I finally got ime to do some tests iTunes vs WaveEditor and my thoughts ...

 

99% the same at least.

 

I can get iTunes to sound worse, but only doing "bad" things, i.e. volume lowered or EQ used.

 

Just my .02 - that's all I can afford after buying all this hifi.

 

Eloise

 

[BEEMB]

The usual sound, reasoned posts from Markr.

 

So many claim differences because I'm sure so many want to hear such differences. But not ANYWHERE, is there an ounce of proof that such differences exist.

 

I'm waiting to be proven wrong, in some ways I'd like to be, but any data backing such claims has not come forth and I guess, will probably never do so.

 

EXCLUSIVE REIVEW:- Amarra vs iTunes. Both sound the same, both have an easy to use interface. One is free. The other isn't. iTunes wins!!!! YAY!!!

 

Apple, you can't produce a wireless device that works that well but you certainly can produce great software.

 

[BEEMB]

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

Let’s summarize:

 

1. There are end users who really want to pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for media players that all sound the same as iTunes.

2. There are end users who prefer to use pro audio editing software for audio playback instead of the flexible and easy to use iTunes player that has excellent music library capabilities.

3. It doesn’t matter how the software players present the bits to the DAC, the players will sound the same.

4. There are no sonic differences in different SRC.

5. Dithering doesn’t matter since it couldn’t possibly affect the sound.

6. Different versions of ASIO or WASAPI couldn’t’ possibly affect the sound.

7. Timing errors cannot be software related.

8. When someone like PeterSt posts MEASURABLE DATA that indicates that the software does have a measurable effect it doesn’t matter because you can’t hear it.

9. One player uses Quicktime but another doesn’t – no matter they both sound the same.

10. Player software algorithms and parameters don’t matter as long as EQ, normalizing and sound enhancement switches are off.

11. Different sound engines sound the same.

12. Filtering implementation in player software couldn’t possibly affect the sound.

13. Whether the audio players use Core Audio or how they use it doesn’t matter, since all players sound alike.

14. Different software programs that have different processor load patterns and memory access patterns still sound the same.

15. Finally, not ANYWHERE is there an ounce of proof that such differences exist.

 

 

[PeterSt]

Just wink along. But I think you've lost it a BIT.

 

You know what ? you are right. Amarra sounds EXACTLY the same as everything else. I didn't listen, but then, bits are bits. There's no way a difference can be there. Moreover, even if someone would measure a difference, the measurement is wrong, I'm sure.

 

So here you have it. I said it now. I'm a hoax. All is a hoax, including ... well, pick it.

 

Yes, I make a joke of this. But why not. You do the same.

 

Dear Matt, in my eyes you have a problem;

No offense meant really, but when you ask for measurements, some present it to you. The next thing what happens is your next question : "but I bet you can't hear that difference" (similar).

 

It looks like things are twisting the other way around;

If you claim so publically that there can't be a difference because you don't hear it, prove *that* (and drop your MP3s or at least ask Chris to delete those posts about it).

 

Again, no offense meant, but I really feel the urge to respond to posts like this as how I just did.

Best,

Peter

 

PS: I won't go against you anymore, just because you really are not the Tim/Ashley kind of person. In my eyes that is your credit. Take it as a credit please (and I hope my english comes along a bit).

 

Edit : audiozorro appears to be just ahead of me. I never say "I'm with you !", but this speaks for itself.

 

 

[Lizard_King]

Itunes is such as low level app. I can not understad why so many people who want good audiophile sound use this Mp3 type program. THis is Apple forcing the user to be like Apple which in nonsense.

 

How many times have I used my laptop (Xp Sp3) with J. River Media Center and kicked the shot out of all Macs using Itunes and even other windows users using Itunes.

 

Take it from me, the President of my Audophile club which has been around since 1979. The BS that Macs with Itunes sound better is totally wrong!

 

I feel people hear what they are famailr to hearing and that is compressed digital. Analong is best so should you want to use a computer front end to drive a USB DAC, you should use a good laptop , (non Mac) with J. River Media Center, and high end DAC that is designed to play music like my Audio Note tube based Dac and the link between the DAC and laptop, a Ridge Street Audio USB cable, there are now three.

 

Liz

 

[davidR]

Matt, what is your setup? Is it similar to Markr's? There is much more to this digital software/hardware deal than we would like to think because it would make everything computer audio related a whole lot easier if it was as simple as you say; no one in their right mind is out to complicate the matter just for the sake of it. That would be plain stupid and unproductive. I truly believe Peter is on the right track to get to the bottom of these differences. In your and Markr's setup, there obviously is no difference to your trained ears. In everyone else's system who hears a a difference though, the change is not subtle by any means. This isn't the placebo effect or a FLAC vs. AIFF minute difference debate. I have listened to Sound Blade and it is better than Itunes hands down, and it bothered the hell out of me when I first heard it because I thought great, I found something better that doesn't have the ease of use Itunes does. I was truly pissed off several months ago. I listened and listened and re-listened pissed off every single time and not being able to get an explanation out of anyone except, "there is no difference except in your head" drove me crazy. I record music and I am very picky about music and sound in general. I know the ears aren't a scientific measuring tool but I'm not deaf. I have compared Pro Tools to Itunes and the difference is even more drastic, and it's definitely not all in my head. I had 3 other people sit down and blindly listen and the choice was clear, Pro Tools. I believe these differences are related to our systems specifically. My DAC processes in 32-bit float, I can't change it in Core Audio, it's set to 32-bit. Maybe the digital algorithms in Pro Tools are more advanced and because I'm using their hardware (Digi-Design) the software & hardware communication/math is better etc..? I don't know what it is but it seems that the two main camps here say the difference is not subtle on their systems and in the other camp there's not even a hint of difference whatsoever. There are many reputable engineers on Gearslutz.com who hear differences in DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations). Matt, with your personal listening experience by jumping to a conclusion you are thinking "wow davidR and others sure are stupid, they have some really creative minds" and with my personal experience and reasoning I'm thinking "man Matt and markr surely can not hear well, how do they enjoy music?!!"; but with those mindsets and by not taking a step back to look at the bigger picture we aren't really making any progress either way. We can call bullshit and placebo effect all day long but in the end in MY system someone telling me there is no difference is like saying a stock honda accord (Itunes) is just as fast as a porsche boxter (Pro Tools) in a drag race. It's just not, bottom line. I wish it WERE NOT the case because I love the organization and ease of use of Itunes, it's a fantastic piece of software for what it is. It would be great if you lived close (I'm in Nashville, TN) so you could sit down and have a listen. I just hope that we all can contribute to getting to the bottom of this with something measureable instead of pissing each other off and drawing a line in the sand.

 

[ronfint]

Perhaps I haven't been following these discussions closely enough. I'm not an expert; so could someone please say how two "players" (iTunes plus name your favorite) that are both bit-perfect can sound different? Doesn't "bit-perfect" mean that a dac to which the output is sent sees the same data from the same input? What else is involved here?

 

[BEEMB]

I shall respond properly when at my computer but for now....

 

Peter I am not the only one unable to hear these differences. A number of users report the same. Kindly guide me to the measurements you believe me to have ignored as I often skip through threads when catching up after work.

 

My dac reclocks the digital stream so would you agree peter that in theory bit perfect output from two different software packages would be the same ? If not, why not?

 

I shall ask this question of soundonsound too.

 

 

[BEEMB]

Lizard

 

You pop back from time to time , mention jriver, then hide away till you feel it's worth reminding us about it again.

 

There are many who would state the opposite to yourself re mac vs windows. What do you mean by analogue is best ?

 

[BEEMB]

David

 

Having core audio set to 32bit is not going to work for iTunes is it not ?surely this should be set to the same as the audio file you are playing back to allow a truly fair comparison

 

[BEEMB]

Peter

 

"drop your mp3s". Could you explain this please?

Whilst I do have some high bit rate mp3s I most certainly can hear a difference between many mp3s and the uncompressed originals.

Could you explain what you meant. ?