Wave Editor trounces iTunes

[BEEMB]

Audiozorro

 

1. My point is simple. I want to know why it's so expensive. What is the problem here ? I am hoping sonic studio will post here. Real software engineers will be useful to have here.

 

2. Fine.

 

3. If it's bit perfect it's bit perfect. Okay so jitter could come into play but come on, jitter is not going to present a problem to any half decent sac these days. Depends on setup I guess.

 

4. Not sure I said that as I believe that does make a difference.

 

5. Hmmmmm.

 

6. In theory they shouldn't. Exclusive bit perfect access to your audio card.

 

7. I'd really hope not. Not unless you have a ton of processes running. You computer barely blinks when playing back audio

 

8. I've clearly missed this. Where can I find these graphs or stats. I want to read about it. I recall something. My issue are comments made such as "I can hear a difference but it can't be measured" as, if you can hear something if most certainly can be measured.

 

9. Bit perfect out is just that. Explain why bit perfect output from two players should be different. Exc jitter.

 

10 11 12 13. See above

 

14. If you have a 486 I guess this could be an issue. Not seen amy proof here yet.

 

15. So where did we get to here. ? I shall happily look at peters results which I'm assuming compared iTunes with fx or something. Maybe my mind shall be changed.direct me to them.

 

 

I am not trying to annoy or prove people to be wrong. I just want to see something demonstrating why bit perfect from two players is not the same. That's all. Not much to ask.

 

Peter will say I should prove that they are the same which is fair comment. I probably do have the ability to record output and analyse the files. Time is the only issue and possibly need some bits, to loop audio back in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[markr]

Matt,

 

Apparently David's DAC does the same thing that mine does. It automatically sets the bit depth in Audio/Midi on the Mac to 32 bit for playback. There is no other bit rate selection available. The sampling rate can be fully adjusted though. This is a 'feature' on many pro DACs.

 

- markr

 

[One and a half]

then why can a 24/96 WAV file played in Sound Forge, sound the same as a wav file or an ALAC in iTunes? Clearly by your reasoning, iTunes should be outputting 128k or worse, yet clearly it doesn't.

 

The windows versus Mac argument is coming to the surface again, and comments from the Lizard contain no convincing argument either way with no documentation, or proof of how his laptop can shoot macs. To my mind, it's just fluff.

 

I'm with BEEMB, show some proof with output waveforms compared to ripped masters, with either spectrum analysers, oscilloscope measurements, or even the humble THD measurements. Just because you are the president of your Audiophile club doesn't mean that your opionion is the final word. What kind of leadership is that? For that reason, you don't have my respect offering any positive discussion on this page.

 

[Audio_ELF]

audiozorro wrote lots ... here are my own opinions and responses to what he wrote ...

1 - yes some people will happily spend hundreds or thousands to get a very small improvement, just like some people will be happy with the rest of their system costing £1000, and some people will want to spend £50,000 or even more. To many people both systems will sound the same.

2 - just like 1 ... some people are happy to forsake convenience for what they perceive is an improvement in sound quality.

3 - jitter does matter ... but a lot of DACs are able to cope with reasonable amount of jitter.

4 - I don't recall (at least on this thread) anyone saying this ... but the point is once you are performing SRC you are not having a bit-perfect output ... the bits HAVE been changed. This can be done with different algorithms so of course there will be differences which MAY result in different sonic characteristics.

5 - see 4 above ... again dithering is changing the data.

6 - different versions of ASIO or WASPI (or core audio, etc) MAY affect the sound ... but many people see it that they only affect the sound if they are unable to carry out their job properly - i.e. if they do interfere with the bits on the way through.

7 - again has anyone said this ... the more usual argument is that timing errors are eliminated by a good DAC.

8 - not really commenting on data published, but hearing and measuring should go hand in hand IMO. I can understand why some things can't be measured ... but IMO if the end result is so different and clear cut )remember the original poster used the word TROUNCES which to me implies a dramatic difference; I'm skeptical that no one has been able to measure it in real world situations.

9 - thats what people are discussing ... DO they sound the same. Also the original post was can we avoid using Quicktime, and people were questioning if it needs to be avoided.

10 - The softwares algorithms matter, i.e. for dithering and SRC.

11 - so far, many people have found this to be the case through listening, and no-one has provided clear cut data why they don't. Equally many people find this to be NOT the case ... but without scientific proof that there MAY be a difference, its difficult to say if its that they have really heard a difference, or if they are utilizing difference software incorrectly (as per the original graphs in the Amarra thread which turned out were misrepresentative because EQ, etc wasn't defeated in iTunes IIRC)/

12 - erm ... isn't this the same as dithering and SRC mentioned in 4 and 5 above?

13 - have you ever noticed how when people want to make a point without evidence, they repeat the same point several times ... see 6 and 9 above.

14 - this is a difficult one and is where the differences may lie. Howevere I've never found a difference when iTunes is sat as the only active application, and when I'm also doing browsing, etc. - again just my opinion / experience ... YMMV.

15 - the only PROOFS we have are subjective testing (that I've seen) and a set of graphs from (I believe) Daniel Weiss - that - when applications were correctly set up - showed minimal differences IIRC. People are just asking for manufacturers to back up some of their claims with independent testing and preferably objective rather than subjective testing. I can understand that WaveEditor, etc not tested this way - their publishers have ZERO interest in the end user playback market, but Amarra is being sold as this so some testing would be nice.

 

LizardKing wrote:

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.

iTunes WAS originally designed as a basic interface to an iPod and to the iTunes store, but it's grown to be so much more ... if Apple weren't interested in the "Audiophile" user, why did it spend (probably) millions, on developing Apple Lossless (PLEASE don't respond saying why don't they support FLAC - they don't and ALAC is just as good except in portability!!) And in any case ... wasn't your beloved J.River Media player JUST an MP3 player when it was first launched??

 

This is Apple forcing the user to be like Apple which in nonsense.

Apple don't force anyone to do anything ... they design software in a way that they believe (and many agree) is a user friendly way to work. Yes there is little in the way of user definable options. You can't rewrite the user interface. You can't get it to use a different engine. Most (all?) iTunes users know there are limitations, but they are prepared to work round them because iTunes for them does 99% of what they want and do it in an easy to understand way.

 

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.

I think the general consensus is NOT that a Mac with Windows "kicks the shot" out of Windows - I've seen a lot of posts from Mac users saying that they have got good or better result with Windows and MediaMonkey or even J.River - but that the Mac is easier to set up to be bit perfect for a novice. In fact most Mac users stay away from superlatives when describing iTunes.

 

My personal thought is that the software CAN make a difference ... but that its never going to be huge. As I posted yesterday I tried WaveEditor, and feel that there may be a small difference, but that the difference was not worth the change from the user friendlyness of 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!

Take it from me - The President of the Intergalactic HyperFi Club ... see we can all make statement that mean absolutely ZERO!!! No ones opinion on an internet forum is worth anything more than anyone else's.

 

I feel people hear what they are famailr to hearing [..]

Final comment treated with the contempt it deserves.

 

I'm trying not to sound like am arrogant but these are my opinions based on experience and knowledge. I'm NOT a computer programmer. I'm NOT an engineer of audio products. I am a music lover. I've had experience with live music - both attending concerts and being involved in the technical side. Please treat my opinions as I treat others ... as one persons experiences. No one has the facts. The whole audiophile world is scattered with variances and differences. Audio is not a RIGHT or WRONG situation. Every part of the chain adds it's own character and the software player is no less a part of this - its just my opinion that it's a very small part. For me using a computer as a source is about convenience more than improving sound quality, and with MacOS and iTunes I've managed that without loosing quality (using same DAC compared with a high end DVD player as transport most recently as a reference point).

 

Well that was at least 5 cents of opinion there so I'm going to stop now.

 

Best wishes and ENJOY THE MUSIC!!

Eloise

 

[blueixus]

I like this forum because it is informative and useful, however it is tiresome when people pour out their bombastic opinions.

 

1)I have found different players sound different.

2)I have also found that different DACs effect how different or similar the different players sound.

 

i.e with my Audionote 2.1 Soundblade (8.5/10) is, IMHO, much better than itunes (4/10) but with my excellent DDDac the difference is much closer because itunes scores (7/10) and Soundblade (8/10).

 

The when I introduce a PC and the Lynx soundcard into the equation things change again, in this set up I have found MediaMonkey to be very good (8/10)

 

I am not pro Mac or PC or itunes or JRiver etc - just pro getting the best sound.

 

I would say to those who insist that all software players must be the same that discovery is never made with closed eyes and closed minds...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

I've just set out what I believe to be an interesting post under the "just the facts thread" in response to Peter which some may find of interest.

 

Reading the Amarra website, thanks to kdoot, more closely it would appear that their software, and I'd assume some other pro audio software, is NOT outputting a bit perfect digital stream. They don't actually want their software to do so.

 

Could these be the differences that people are hearing ? Maybe so. This kind of makes far more sense.

 

For Amarra, Sonic Studio believe that the music data, processed through their audio engine, sounds betters having changed the data than simply passing it bit perfect.

 

M.

 

[PeterSt]

Hi Matt, you're back. :-))

 

I don't know what your read but

 

For Amarra, Sonic Studio believe that the music data, processed through their audio engine, sounds betters having changed the data than simply passing it bit perfect.

 

... which would not be much different from nearly everbody liking XRCDs better opposed to the normal take, while

 

a. To me it sounds as distortion

b. you can clearly see it in the file.

 

No no, not another time about XRCDs, but it is not so hard to find an algorithm that is perceived as better (at first) but actually is not at all.

 

I don't know whether you are right on this (again, didn't read what you read), but the far too quick answer in the podcast to the bit perfect question still sings in my mind.

This time I am suggestive and I better don't, but I work with this kind of data, and I'm usually right.

 

But what did you read in there Matt ?

 

[audiozorro]

My original post was basically to note that I heard a significant difference between players and for others to post their observations. Whether some folks agree with me or not is immaterial, unless perhaps I am the only one observing the difference, to which I would question my own observations.

 

I have been through this countless times with some folks that believe there are no sonic differences between amps or wire and that except for turntables, vibration control is hogwash. There’s nothing wrong in not hearing any differences and there may be several reasons:

 

1. Perhaps your ears have not been trained to hear the differences, or

2. Perhaps your system does not have the resolution to discern audio differences, or

3. Perhaps your mind is capable of ignoring or smoothing any differences, or

4. Perhaps there are no differences

 

Anyone is free to hold fast to #4, but when a significant number of well respect music lovers and audiophiles strongly disagree I suggest you keep an open mind. It reminds me of when stereograms were first introduced. Some people could stare at them for hours and never see the 3D images hidden within the picture. But once your eyes were trained to recognize the hidden image, you often wondered how you ever missed something so obvious.

 

One of my rants that I often repeat is that bit perfect data does not equal perfect sound. The bit perfect designation is leading some folks to possible erroneous conclusions since if something is perfect it by definition cannot be improved.

 

The only way I can verify the bit perfect data stream is with the method recommended by Chris of observing the HDCD light on you DAC (if so equipped) when playing back HDCD audio files. IMO this leaves a lot to be desired for I know that I can introduce jitter reducing devices before the DAC and the HDCD light on my DAC stays on. Now, many if not most of us believe that jitter can affect the sound so now you have clear evidence that as one poster put it “some bit perfect files are more perfect than others”.

 

Another good and well documented example of this fallacy is with the CD discs themselves. Several studies and experiments have shown that the CD is not perfect, that often a CDR of the original CD can sound better than the CD. This is just one of the reasons why the ultimate quest in computer audio is to get the digital files directly as digital data and not digital audio files. Below is a reprint of just one of dozens of posts and white papers on the subject.

***********************************REPRINT****************************************

Copy CD's to CD-R always sound better

 

As a recording engineer for Chesky Records, I first started working with CD-Rs in the Summer of 1990, using Yamaha's very first CD-R recorder. It cost a cool $65,000 USD, and blank 63 minute discs were running upwards of $60 USD each.

 

At that time as now, the finished, recorded pit structure of a CD-R offers superior transitions from land to pit (bump) than on most any pressed CDs (JVC XRCD excluded). Simply put, this produces an optical eye pattern to the laser reading mechanism of a CD player which creates much more accurate square wave patterns that are the analog representation of the digital signal.

 

It is here where jitter normally sneaks in, because the optical eye pattern must be interpreted by an optical sensor, whose accuracy is directly effected by the clarity of the eye pattern.

 

Small deviations in timing (jitter) are not recorded nor correted in our single ended 16-bit PCM recording system, and this has been a problem all the way back to 1980, when Phillips and Sony took a few short cuts.

 

The result is that the same data from a pressed CD will always sound more transparent when dubbed to a CD-R. It is simply a matter a physics, and lack of recording the time signal from the original A/D!

Cheers

Jeremy

 

The Kipnis Studios

www.Kipnis-Studios.com

 

Video Calibration Labs

www.VideoCalibration.com

 

Epiphany Recordings Ltd.

www.EpiphanyRecordings.com

 

***********************************REPRINT****************************************

My apologies for repeating several comments on my summary list of 15, I should have kept it to an even or dirty dozen, but I was just trying to quickly capture what others had written here and elsewhere. I also had second thoughts on including any references to SRC since that is not bit perfect, but it is or may be important to higher SQ. I believe that I have alluded to this in other posts that the goal is for music realism, emotion and enjoyment. If colorations, distortions and bit imperfection brings us closer to audio nirvana, then I’m all for it.

 

Finally, it has been mentioned briefly in several posts that software manipulations are often sonically superior to hardware manipulations. If true, then whatever happens before the DAC may be better than the manipulations that occur between the digital inputs and analog outputs of the DAC.

 

 

[markr]

Hey az,

 

I still hear no appreciable difference by using Wave Editor over iTunes. I've got over 12 hours invested in it. I actually was hoping that I might hear something, but no. Not really. I think that this could actually be the difference in equipment being used for comparison. The last time I was struck by the difference in sound from one player software to another was around 10 years ago, and that was on a PC running Win98. The winner in that one was a pro-application: Cubase. The loser(s) was WinAmp or MediaPlayer.

 

There have been all sorts of things posted here about this, but one thing gives me pause: You requested that people post their findings (opinions) about the difference in sound between iTunes and Wave Editor and out of THIRTY TWO posts here so far, only four opinions about an actual comparison have been posted: yours, mine, Eloise, and seringetiplains.

 

There has been a lot of other stuff but that is it so far here at CA. The score is tied 2-2. Maybe we could get some more Mac users to post up some more opinions? (You cannot do a comparison here unless you are running a Mac - Wave Editor is 'Mac Only' folks) ... I guess that people feel the need to' participate' even if they don't actually participate. Sometimes that is wonderful.....

 

regards,

markr

 

[audiozorro]

I was hoping that more of the Mac users here would try out the Wave Editor software and post their impressions. I believe the trial version is good for 15 days after you download or first use it, but the demo version has no time limit.

 

Hopefully more CA Mac readers will try out the Amarra demo software now that Chris hinted that the download should be available tomorrow.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Peter,

 

I'm not understanding your post Peter ... Kdoot has correctly pointed out that Amarra are processing the audio. It's not bit perfect.

 

My question to all was ... is this the reason it sounds better ...

 

Peter - you obviously feel that bit perfect is the way it should be. Sonic Studio may disagree..

 

Chris what does it take to get them to post here !!???

 

[Mr.C]

I'll add my opinion to the conversation. I heard no differences between iTunes and Soundblade that couldn't be attributed to a mindf*k. Meaning that because I know that it is uber expensive, my mind will fill in the gaps with superior sound. What I do know for certain was that I didn't hear any more details, so if there is a difference, it would (maybe) be in the presentation.

 

[PeterSt]

What gives you the impression that you should stick to #4 ?

Let's repeat it :

 

1. Perhaps your ears have not been trained to hear the differences, or

2. Perhaps your system does not have the resolution to discern audio differences, or

3. Perhaps your mind is capable of ignoring or smoothing any differences, or

4. Perhaps there are no differences

 

Now let's see (and don't think I'm trying to be funny, but I'm also not ranting or anything !) :

 

Ad 1.

In order to stick to #4, the first prerequisite is #1. Now I think you said it has been 10 years ago to hear a siginificant difference anywhere, so I highly doubt you have the trained ears necessary here.

Btw, what is necessary ? nothing is necessary. It *is* though, to conclude #4 is in order.

 

Ad 2.

Your escape from #1 would be #2 to be not all the best. Do you have this same system for the same last ten years ? then that could be it.

Although it is the theoretical escape from #1, how in the world would you have been able to get there with this system ? you couldn't, right ?

 

Ad 3.

Although this is an option, and possibly your over-protection against placebos, would you stick to this one, your vote will be cut out. This is not objective, or otherwise not suitable to participate in the contest.

 

Ad 4.

Again this is an option, but nobody proved there are not. Of course this by itself doesn't make them to be there. If it were so no differences can be there (and I'm talking in general now, so looking over all players), we must seriously wonder what is wrong with all those who do perceive differences. Somehow it seems the list is short of options.

But hey, before we come to that, I'm sure you picked the wrong option in the first place. So especially for you Mark, it is not allowed to pick #4.

 

In order to know a bit what to do to get there : what you don't hear in ten years, many hear within ONE second. I guess this starts with #2 which gives you the possibility to work on #1. If then #3 isn't into play, you're there. Happy training !

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Here are the three hints to you NOT reading anything (yep, sorry, that's me, remember ?)

 

I don't know what your read but

 

(again, didn't read what you read)

 

But what did you read in there Matt ?

 

and here is your response :

 

I'm not understanding your post Peter ... kdoot has correctly pointed out that Amarra are processing the audio. It's not bit perfect.

 

So, who the hell is kdoot ? (yea, a CA member, and respected like anyone in here is). Is he the new owner of Sonic Studios perhaps ?

 

In my very personal opinion you are quite of of line by again STATING something, which comes down to lying as how I see it. I mean, this time kdoot not has only pointed out that Amarra is not bit perfect, in between posts he now also CORRECTLY pointed out it is not bit perfect.

 

I am not bothered at all by the way kdoot expressed this, assuming I know where he did that ( http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Just-facts-iTunes-lossless-AirTunes-and-jitter#comment-18690 )

You know what, I'll quote him :

 

Please have another look at the Sonic Studio website, and I think you'll find that their product is quite explicit about modifying the audio data. For instance, those graphs we have referred to relate to the use of volume controls in iTunes and Amarra. Both modify the data, but Sonic claims that theirs does so in a way which more accurately preserves the original waveform.

 

To be clear : I did NOT look at there website, because I already did, and couldn't find any proof of anything related to the bit perfect subject.

And on a sidenote : when I first responded to your post in the thread we are looking at now, I did not know about this post of kdoot. Now, according the contents I learned later (including where you could have gotten your STATEMENT from), it is my conclusion that again you don't know what this is all about, and copy words from others only.

 

Let me go back to kdoot's post once more :

 

Please have another look at the Sonic Studio website, and I think you'll find that their product is quite explicit about modifying the audio data. For instance, those graphs we have referred to relate to the use of volume controls in iTunes and Amarra. Both modify the data, but Sonic claims that theirs does so in a way which more accurately preserves the original waveform.

 

and

 

iTunes + AirPort Express = bit perfect from lossless files

XXHighEnd = bit perfect from lossless files + jitter reduction techniques

Amarra = complex data processing + specialised DAC hardware integration?

 

Maybe it takes a few times Matt, but kdoot is vary careful here, and the only mistake he could make is the last line of the second quote above, because the question mark not necessarily refers to the complex data processing, but in a lawsuit he will get away with that.

 

So ... this is how *I* read "data" (opposed to information). Part of the data is that kdoot didn't present himself as the new owner of Sonic Studios, who btw may have tried to bring the opposite message.

But there is more data before I make it information, and that is this :

 

those graphs we have referred to relate to the use of volume controls in iTunes and Amarra.

 

This is true by the grace of my own earlier interpretation, or better : this is true in my data.

Data for you might be that one of the formost areas where XXHighEnd excels is in its digital volume, of which I claim it is way beyond Amarra's which is just plain wrong (now keep in mind, this is only data, and it is for you to verify, AND NOT TO IMPRINT IN YOUR HEAD ONLY. And yes, the iTunes volume is even more "plain wrong".

 

Now read back. According to your interpretation Matt (and possibly kdoot's as well), XXHighEnd is not bit perfect. What the heck !

Well, I don't know how this gets into your mind (and I could again ask for Sonic pages where you read this), but THE MOST OBVIOUSLY this is totally unrelated to bit perfectness. Only if you mix things up wildly, or (sorry !) combine other's words without the slightest of knowlegde, you make come to your statement. I'll repeat it to be sure you didn't forget :

 

kdoot has correctly pointed out that Amarra are processing the audio. It's not bit perfect.

 

and with that, you persist on keeping away the context, no matter I am asking for it three times.

 

What did we learn ? That at least I should not listen to you. I won't speak for others of course, but I do want to emphasize that you are playing with other's lifes, in this case Sonic.

 

In the mean time you all may wonder what the heck I'm doing at defending Amarra, which is what it comes down to. No, I'm not. But I say it again, I like honesty and realism. Can't stand the opposite.

 

Right. Having said this all, I will now tell you that kdoot most probably is right in that Amarra gets its better sound from other sources than "way out mathematics". Indeed it will be the volume control and stuff, nice pumping up of the bass and anything else that a normal human audio being wouldn't think of in the first place.

The volume control is still not right, and the other stuff does not belong in there.

 

Peter - you obviously feel that bit perfect is the way it should be. Sonic Studio may disagree..

 

I hear you, but I don't know what to do with it.

 

Peter

 

[markr]

So, Peter - you are saying that you do hear a difference between "iTunes" and "Wave Editor" running on the Mac?

 

.... check please.

 

[Lars]

Wave Editor does sound better than iTunes. Always has.

 

[Audio_ELF]

Well reasoned post there Lars!

 

[markr]

... ~ 3 yeas and 2 nays. Peter......?

 

EDIT: So you've been using it a long time have you Lars? Please, tell us a bit more about your setup and how you use Wave Editor.

 

[Lars]

Audio_Elf,

 

All of this has been discussed to death on AA Computer Audio in the past. This is nothing new. You don't hear a difference-that's OK with me.

 

[markr]

Could you point me to 'AA Computer Audio'? I cannot seem to find it anywhere on the web. I'm interested in the discussion that you referenced, and as most folks here either don't seem to want to participate in this, or just don't care, I'd like to find more information to help me flesh out my opinion.

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Thankyou for your permission for my opinion / observations Lars ... Only you said "always has" when 2 out of 5 (not a scientifically relevant sample size) say it doesn't. I'm not doubting your observations, but how about some humility and manners to express it as in your opinion / observations it's better.

 

Anyway I'm planning to find time for further tests when I get chance new week.

 

Eloise

 

Later thought... Sorry if this sounded snappy. Not had best of days. I try to respect everyone's opinion and I might have misread Lars comments / attitude. If I caused offence I'm sorry was not my intention.

 

[Lars]

Audio_Elf,

 

Sorry I hurt your feelings. I'll rephrase what I said: that "for me" Wave Editor has always sounded better than iTunes. Now as with all of this stuff, some people hear a difference, others don't. There are so many variables, who can predict the outcome for everyone?

 

We have discussed this subject for two years at AA. For specific links, I'll have to search.

 

 

 

 

 

[AV-OCD]

AA Computer Audio = www.audioasylum.com > Computer Audio forum section

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/bbs.html

 

I did a search over there and see no threads dedicated to Wave Editor

 

[markr]

Thanks Tim.

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

There have definitely been discussions about Wave Editor in the Computer Audio Asylum, as that's where I first heard about it.

 

Not sure what you mean by 'dedicated to Wave editor' above, but... if you're only searching titles (or something similar) you might not find the threads.

 

enjoy,

clay