Best Software for Playback?

[John_Foxx_Fan]

I've managed to upgrade my Mac Mini to a more recent model running High Seria.  My previous MM was a 2006 model running Snow Leopard.  I have licences for Pure Music v1 and Audirvana v1.4, but I have been using Audirvana most of the time as I prefer that.  I only playback FLAC nothing else.

 

I just wanted to ask the question is Audirvana still king of the hill when it comes to music playerers?  Should I buy v3.5?  Is the sound better than v1.4?

 

Thanks.

[bobbmd]

YES

[AnotherSpin]

On 3/7/2020 at 12:32 PM, John_Foxx_Fan said:

I've managed to upgrade my Mac Mini to a more recent model running High Seria.  My previous MM was a 2006 model running Snow Leopard.  I have licences for Pure Music v1 and Audirvana v1.4, but I have been using Audirvana most of the time as I prefer that.  I only playback FLAC nothing else.

 

I just wanted to ask the question is Audirvana still king of the hill when it comes to music playerers?  Should I buy v3.5?  Is the sound better than v1.4?

 

Thanks.

 

It is possible to try and compare software, such as Audirvana, HQPlayer or Roon before purchase. 

[bobbmd]

Yes believe all have free trials but still need credit card not sure of HQ player don’t use it on this page there is a thread on 60 day free trial of ROON 

[biosailor]

HQPlayer can be downloaded and tried, but each session is limited to 30 min. That makes evaluation very cumbersome.

[AnotherSpin]

2 hours ago, biosailor said:

HQPlayer can be downloaded and tried, but each session is limited to 30 min. That makes evaluation very cumbersome.

 

I doesn't take much time to realize HQP superiority to other software players 🙂

[biosailor]

21 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

 

I doesn't take much time to realize HQP superiority to other software players 🙂

Well, for trying out the numerous filters, it’s a nuisance. But as you’ve made up your mind very quickly, all the better! 

[AnotherSpin]

2 hours ago, biosailor said:

Well, for trying out the numerous filters, it’s a nuisance. But as you’ve made up your mind very quickly, all the better! 

 

It was a joke. However, I remember very well that when I first tried HQP many years ago, I was immediately amazed by the unique naturalness and right simplicity of sound - with default settings. It was about 10 years ago or more, I guess, when I listened to music mostly through very expensive Amarra Symphony and still free Audirvana. A lot has changed since those times, but the overall impression is the same, HQP still sounds more natural than other players to me. I have no doubt that for other ears and in other audio systems the impression and preferences may be different. So, I suggest trying and comparing. 

[biosailor]

On 3/31/2020 at 3:07 PM, AnotherSpin said:

 

It was a joke. However, I remember very well that when I first tried HQP many years ago, I was immediately amazed by the unique naturalness and right simplicity of sound - with default settings. It was about 10 years ago or more, I guess, when I listened to music mostly through very expensive Amarra Symphony and still free Audirvana. A lot has changed since those times, but the overall impression is the same, HQP still sounds more natural than other players to me. I have no doubt that for other ears and in other audio systems the impression and preferences may be different. So, I suggest trying and comparing. 

I know what you mean. I was very much attracted by HQPlayer when I tested it first in a simple set up: no upsampling, no dither correction, just straight PCM. With Roon in the background, it sounded very good, smooth, lacking my long-perceived Roon edginess. So far so good.

But testing the plethora of filter/dither combinations got on my nerves after a while. You change a filter, one expects to hear a difference, and of course they are audible. But deciding which is the best, was extremely hard for me. I kept changing and changing the filters, till I gave up!

Something strange happened in the meantime: I started to like Roon much better than before! I don’t know whether an update caused it, but I decided to exploit Roon‘s full potential. Add to this that I am experimenting with room treatment and, being very skeptical, it is very important and has a pronounced effect, much more than filter swapping.

[AnotherSpin]

2 hours ago, biosailor said:

I know what you mean. I was very much attracted by HQPlayer when I tested it first in a simple set up: no upsampling, no dither correction, just straight PCM. With Roon in the background, it sounded very good, smooth, lacking my long-perceived Roon edginess. So far so good.

But testing the plethora of filter/dither combinations got on my nerves after a while. You change a filter, one expects to hear a difference, and of course they are audible. But deciding which is the best, was extremely hard for me. I kept changing and changing the filters, till I gave up!

Something strange happened in the meantime: I started to like Roon much better than before! I don’t know whether an update caused it, but I decided to exploit Roon‘s full potential. Add to this that I am experimenting with room treatment and, being very skeptical, it is very important and has a pronounced effect, much more than filter swapping.

 

Yes, HQP gives a lot of variables to play with. However, I was always able to find the right combination pretty quickly - with new filters  or when the player version was changed. As for the room treatment, there is no doubt that by experimenting in this area great improvements could be achieved. At the same time we have even wider variety of options and approaches here, and the cost of trial and error is incomparably higher than when swapping the filters, isn't it? Nevertheless, we talk about software, right?

[John_Foxx_Fan]

Hi.

 

I tried Audirvana 3.5 and it sounded great but at the moment I am not using my hifi that much so do you know any good free alternative music players on the Mac? 

 

Aurdirvana 3.5 is a defo purchase but not at the moment.

[stefano_mbp]

You could try foobar2000, not sure about dsd playing capabilities.

Never used it but it has a great reputation 

[firedog]

foobar2000 is very good, but the base install is a very barebones UI and limited capabilities.

To really make it useful you have add in component plugins. More fiddly than some have the patience/ability for. 

[Cebolla]

foobar2000 for Mac, which presumably is more relevant to the OP, is a simplified & incomplete version of the original Windows foobar2000. It is currently without the ability to extend its capabilities via plugin components, though it does have a few of the original Windows fb2k plugins' functions already built-in (eg audio output to UPnP/DLNA streamers - originally from the foo_out_upnp plugin):

https://www.foobar2000.org/mac

 

It doesn't yet support DSD - the Windows version uses plugins for DSD.