AyreWave- A New OSX Audio Player Released AT RMAF

[bluedy1]

The most convenient would be to have AW work exactly like Itunes or behind the scenes: Itunes being used as usual.

Sound is very good

Interface much prettier than PM.

 

[CG]

These are just my thoughts...

 

iTunes works exactly like iTunes. If having a playback application that works like iTunes is your priority and desire, and it certainly is for millions of people, then by all means use iTunes!

 

There's already two other well received applications - actually even more if you count the various level of feature sets available - that use iTunes in the background if you so choose in Amarra and Pure Music. They are both professionally done and well supported. I'm not sure the world wants or needs yet another of these.

 

 

 

[4est]

Geez CG. If iTunes sounded better we would. It is obvious that the UI has not been worked on much since Play. I cannot see attempting to manage my 2500+ album library with the present interface. I imagine it would be far easier to adopt iTunes than starting from scratch. As a catalog device it works pretty well save for the known issues with composer based media. I have no need for the album covers or the "store", but the browser works pretty slick IMO.

 

[CG]

Personally, I prefer the simpler interface. My library is smaller than yours at something just under 2000 albums, but they are organized (by iTunes) according to artist and then album.

 

I just choose what albums or even just tracks to play from the music library, import them to the listening queue and sit back. When listening time is done, I just close AyreWave and that's the end of it. I don't even need to put away any LPs or CDs.

 

The next time I just remove all the tracks and start again. If I was interrupted from my previous session and want to finish, I can do that, too.

 

I accept that other people may have different preferences. That's why there's a market for so many playback applications.

 

My understanding is that AyreWave was designed to be exactly as described on the AyreWave web page. (http://sbooth.org/AyreWave/) The idea was that simplicity might be one way to provide best playback performance.

 

AyreWave has a pretty good dictionary of AppleScript actions that would allow you or any other user to build a Script interface to iTunes (see the AppleScript presented earlier in this thread) or even author a very complicated user interface, even identical to iTunes if you like.

 

Again, these are my own opinions and only my own. I'm not here to promote AyreWave nor to demean any of the other available playback applications - just to help where I can some. (That last part isn't working out well of late; I need to keep my mouth - ahh, fingers - shut more.)

 

[church_mouse]

Personally, I am in agreement with CG - keep it simple and sounding sweet.

 

I used to use Play - in my own set up it was the best sounding free player I could find. I was quite happy with the rather basic UI of Play.

 

With Ayrewave my music sounds substantially better to me. The integration with i-Tunes is basic, far from flawless, but something I can live with.

 

However, it seems to me the issue for Stephen Booth is going to be what he decides to charge for the official release. If he keeps it priced low, then I feel he is perfectly entitled to say that we are paying for sound quality, nothing more. The more he wants for the product, then those that feel the interface and the i-Tunes integration rather lack have a much stronger case.

 

[4est]

At the risk of be argumentative, what could be simpler than interacting with iTunes as Amarra or PM. It is not like iTunes is actually interacting with tracks once they are cued.

 

As church mouse stated "The integration with i-Tunes is basic, far from flawless, but something I can live with."

 

That was fine for Play, because it was free, but even Play had a drawer that accessed categories. One of the features I really like about iTunes is the playlists, especially the smart playlists. It wasn't until I "lost" an iTunes library that I realized how much I used the smart features. Three years of "info" about my tastes, current music etc... were all lost. Personally I find it a little scary how many are willing to lose functionality for fear that it might change the sound. I find it very hard to believe that the browser is what makes iTunes sound worse than other players...

 

[CG]

What do you find that you don't like about the iTunes interface AppleScript posted earlier? What doesn't it do for you that you need or desire? That's not a challenge - I just would like to understand.

 

Is that what Church Mouse really said? I took his comment as that he was OK, albeit not thrilled, with the existing AyreWave to iTunes interface. But, that may only be my skewed interpretation.

 

BTW... Just for fun, start iTunes. Don't play anything. Now start Activity Monitor and watch what iTunes is doing while just sitting there.

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"At the risk of be argumentative,"

 

ditto

 

 

"what could be simpler than interacting with iTunes as Amarra or PM?"

 

That's easy to answer - using only a single application to select and play a song.

 

Pure Music's "Less is more" mode - an attempt at minimalist music playback - requires interaction with both UIs to play a song. Select a song in iTunes, and uses Less is More to initiate play.

 

 

"One of the features I really like about iTunes is the playlists, especially the smart playlists."

 

You can still use iTunes to manage playlists, and then copy a playlist directly to AyreWave when you want to play it. That's what I do if/when I want to play a playlist.

 

 

"I find it very hard to believe that the browser is what makes iTunes sound worse than other players..."

 

Do you find that AW sounds better than Amarra/Pure Music? If not, why be concerned about this? If you do, perhaps you have a different explanation for why it sounds better?

 

As one who has followed the quest for the best sounding players (and purchased every player), I am convinced that the reason AW sounds better (to me) in my system is due to it's minimalist nature.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

[jhbpa]

AW is not going to be for everybody, nor should it be.

 

I believe the user needs to have a basic understanding of computer file management. Advances in GUI with OS's (especially Mac's) over the past decade have rendered this skill unnecessary to the majority of users who have "grown up" with iTunes.

 

It's a shame really, AW can be so convenient and efficient because it doesn't need iTunes to be running.

 

Try to think of AW as a turntable or a CD player where you can cue up a bunch of different recordings for a particular listening session. If you like the session, save it as a play list.

 

Free yourself from iTunes.

 

[bhobba]

Hi Guys

 

Just for the heck of it I decided to download AyreWave and give it a go through my Tranquility SE. Didn't expect much over Pure Music. But when I did WOW.

 

First for some reason it is louder which means I can have the volume lower so I now don't notice a slight buzz/hum issue I had. BTW guys the buzz/hum is not in the Tranquility. To check that I fed the Tranquility direct (no volume control) into some 500W Macintosh 501's and fed them to some 89db speakers and got only a slight buzz/hum with my ears next to the speakers. But for some reason it is worse in my system. Decided to try a better power chord into the Tranquility and it did seem to lower the buzz a bit but I noticed other improvements as well such as better detail.

 

But with AireWave detail, air, accuracy, staging improved, and stuff I really can't get a handle on well enough to put into words changed except to say it is more realistic. Right now I prefer it to Pure Music. The only area I think Pure Music may have the edge is in slam. However I suspect that it related to the volume issue - in lowering overall volume I think louder passes sound more dynamic. Just a conjecture. I still do not understand how a supposedly bit perfect player can not sound as loud although someone did mention it could be related to something called flow. However I remain unconvinced.

 

Listening to Diana Krall right now and man it sounds good. Highly recommended.

 

Thanks

Bill

 

 

[church_mouse]

I have never been much of a fan of i-Tunes. Even after I switched to a Mac as my daily computer of preference, I have continued to rip my music on a pc using EAC and JRiver. I then played the Flac using Play on a MacMini/Dac2 set up. All was good in the churchmouse house.

 

Along comes Ayrewave. In my audio set up, Ayrewave is wonderfully sweet and detailed.

 

So, I initially tried to use Ayrewave by simply using my Flac library directly. However, when I rip a cd my files are broken down in to album, then track number, then name - so selecting individual tracks proved rather time consuming and frustrating. This is not the fault of Ayrewave, it simply is not really best suited for the way I have chosen to organise my folder structure. The direct access to the library also did not work too well with how I have my classical music organised.

 

Therefore, I took the step of making another copy of my entire library in AIFF (thank you XLD). I use i-Tunes to read the metadata (i-Tunes organising my folder turned off) , I use the smartplaylist function to handle my classical, and I drag and drop in to Ayrewave (drag and drop causes fewer problems with the track order getting messed up in the link between i-Tunes and Ayrewave).

 

Do I prefer the way that in Play I never had to use i-Tunes? Yes.

 

Can I live with i-Tunes/Ayrewave. Most definitely!

 

[Miska]

I still do not understand how a supposedly bit perfect player can not sound as loud although someone did mention it could be related to something called flow.

 

In case this happens for 44.1/16 data.. Some players, drivers or systems (purposefully or accidentally) pad 16-bit data with zeros to fill a 24-bit sample for a DAC chip and call this "bit perfect". However, it is now quieter because the maximum sample value is never reached, since eight LSB-bits are always zeros. Maximum value would be 0x7fff00 instead of 0x7fffff.

 

P.S. Whether this difference is audible is a different matter..

 

[findog3103]

I enjoy the sound of AyreWave and the way it is designed now is how I would like the non-Beta version to be. I would rather not have the bells and whistles of many other players so as the cost would outweigh AyreWave's benefit. This way I can simply organize my collection via iTunes and drag them into AyreWave when needed and just enjoy the wonderful sound.

 

[satbaba]

But the remote control does not work ( with ipod touch )

 

therefore I prefer puremusic

 

[CG]

The Apple Remote app for iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch only works with playback applications that use iTunes as part of their user interface.

 

If that's important to you, PureMusic is a great choice.

 

 

[SteveS1]

I gave them both a really good go this morning with an empty house (bliss). I like them both very much. There are small differences imo, and which is preferable may even be programme dependent. I like the AyreWave simplicity, and the option to just have that open - but it would be even better to be able to load significant volumes of material and be able to interrogate and play via iTouch remote.

 

That gives PM an edge for me at the moment, but I'm sure this rapidly changing part of the replay chain has a few twists yet.

 

Steve

 

[santar]

I find I am listening to music through AyreWave by default. Better sounding for me than Amarra or Pure Music. Interface a bit basic but I was sold when I found that AyreWave will play hi-res multi-channel Wav's or Flac's (via an hdmi connection to a receiver).

 

However 1.0b2 seems to have broken this functionality as the files only play in stereo. I reverted to b1 (thanks to Time Machine) and I am now back with surround sound.

 

Please do not abandon this feature!

 

Santar

 

MacMini (2010) 2.4GHz/4GB; external FW HD; AudioQuest Chocolate hdmi; AVR600; Kimber 8PR; B&W XT Series.

 

 

[bottlerocket]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but I thought the practice for 16/44.1 going to 24 bit samples, was to pad the "17 - 24" bits with zeroes and the result is not negative since the original sample was stored in 16 bits? Am I missing something? Just curious.

 

 

 

[wgscott]

"Do you have the same problem with the built-in audio?"

 

Not sure if this is directed at me (I guess I should use thread view but it is too complex for me). I get the same problem, using the "built-in audio" interface, whether or not the toslink cable is connected. (It still calls itself "built-in audio" either way.) I also get the same problem with a different user account, after trashing the plist file, irrespective of the time delay, +/- hog mode, +/- memory play, etc. I can't think of anything else to try.

 

Again, feel free to email me wgscott1 gmail dot com

 

[CG]

wgscott:

 

Short of suggesting that you reinstall your operating system (who'd want to do that??), I've run out of ideas.

 

You seem to be having a unique problem. Obviously it has nothing to do with your DAC. It could be something you've installed, some system setting that you made (whether you were aware of it or not), or something that got corrupted.

 

Sorry I can't be of more help.

 

Have you tried on one of your other Mac systems?

 

[wgscott]

I'll give it a try. The mini is fresh for 2010, and although I confess to an above-average tendency to fsck with the system, I tend to leave this one alone. I'll try a few others (I have a 2009 mini at work that I should start playing some music through), and a bunch of others.

 

 

 

[CG]

fsck may be *exactly* what you need to run here. :8^)

 

I wonder if something got messed up with some setting you made for HDMI output. Whether you knew it or not.

 

[bottlerocket]

A new twist for me. I have all the same problems wgscott is seeing, but also now notice that AW always set the word length to 16 bit regardless of the sample rate. Other players don't touch the bit depth at all so I keep it set at 24 bit in Audio Midi. But now AW changes it on me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Miska]

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but I thought the practice for 16/44.1 going to 24 bit samples, was to pad the "17 - 24" bits with zeroes and the result is not negative since the original sample was stored in 16 bits? Am I missing something? Just curious.

 

Sign bit is the MSB, thus signedness is correct regardless of padding for MSB-aligned values. Even for LSB-aligned values most CPUs support 'sign extension'. Thus padding doesn't affect signed'ness, either way, even with right-shift operations.

 

7FFF is the maximum positive value, 8000 is the maximum negative value and FFFF is -1. When this is padded to 7FFF00, 800000 and FFFF00, signedness doesn't change. And since 3-byte alignment is inefficient in modern hardwares, this is frequently padded to a 32-bit word.

 

 

[CG]

I just tried several tracks of several formats, sample rates, and bit depths. The sample rate changed correctly every time and the bit depth never budged from 24 bits. This according to Audio MIDI Setup.

 

But, I don't believe for a second that anybody is imagining what they've reported.

 

This is yet another reason why I don't write software.