As said above iTunes is bit perfect so is decibel with EQ all on flat all these apps will give you the exact same quality.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best Mac audio player?
- Thread starter 9007938
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As said above iTunes is bit perfect so is decibel with EQ all on flat all these apps will give you the exact same quality.
What kind of mac do you have? All macs for at least the past 5 years have optical outputs built in.
I can't find any optical ports...
I have a 2009 iMac and a 2010 13" Mac Air and I don't see any optical outputs anywhere...
I have a 2009 iMac and a 2010 13" Mac Air and I don't see any optical outputs anywhere...
The analog output also doubles as an optical out. Just plug in the correct cable and it automatically switches to digital.
At least not using an optical digital connection. But you still have the headphone port as an analog output. Or you could just use a USB audio interface.
interesting topic. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned MacAmp Lite X. (http://www.macamplite.com/)
After having tried almost all progs mentioned in this topic since my switch to Mac 2 years ago, I actually found MacAmp working quite well, although it is kind of old and dead it works fine for me (MacBook Pro 2009 Snow Leopard). Still lacks a lot, but it has gained a place in my usable list of music players on the Mac
next to Vox
I like how the player looks neat and undisturbing in the corner of your screen, and that you're able to use the playlist feature again (same like Cog actually). Also nice is FastForwarding music like the way your tapedeck used to do that ;-) I find this very handy as I scan DJ sets a lot for interesting tracks I hunt down and try to ID. It doens't make you click so much all the time in the player which is very annoying...
I generally mostly use Vox, although I do miss some features there too, so MacAmp Lite X gives me a bit added feature.
As for all music players I've used so far.... I still miss proper keyboard support though.. Still can't believe this is such an issue on Mac, disappoints me really.
On Windows I used Winamp for ages and just used the spacebar to scan long DJ sets, a lot more comfortable!
I only use iTunes to organize my library despite the fact that I sincerely hate it too I remember someone mentioning about the annoyance of not being able to play their music without organizing it. I agree, I used to have that too, but once you see the benefits of organizing your library it makes you wanna re-organize everything and get that nice organized eye-candy-ish look with all your albums properly tagged and added with album illustrations in iTunes When you have an iPhone it makes the experience so much better on your iPhone too as I before just could never find tracks as they were all over the place....
I can recommend using EasyTAG for that. I did a lot of research and trying on that too as there are more alternatives but EasyTAG does the file renaming job too. Takes some practice to get it right but once you've got it it's easy, you can go through your library really quick. Don't use iTunes for that, it's slow and doesn't give you as much overview in my opinion.
Cheers
After having tried almost all progs mentioned in this topic since my switch to Mac 2 years ago, I actually found MacAmp working quite well, although it is kind of old and dead it works fine for me (MacBook Pro 2009 Snow Leopard). Still lacks a lot, but it has gained a place in my usable list of music players on the Mac
next to VoxI like how the player looks neat and undisturbing in the corner of your screen, and that you're able to use the playlist feature again (same like Cog actually). Also nice is FastForwarding music like the way your tapedeck used to do that ;-) I find this very handy as I scan DJ sets a lot for interesting tracks I hunt down and try to ID. It doens't make you click so much all the time in the player which is very annoying...
I generally mostly use Vox, although I do miss some features there too, so MacAmp Lite X gives me a bit added feature.
As for all music players I've used so far.... I still miss proper keyboard support though.. Still can't believe this is such an issue on Mac, disappoints me really.
On Windows I used Winamp for ages and just used the spacebar to scan long DJ sets, a lot more comfortable!
I only use iTunes to organize my library despite the fact that I sincerely hate it too
I remember someone mentioning about the annoyance of not being able to play their music without organizing it. I agree, I used to have that too, but once you see the benefits of organizing your library it makes you wanna re-organize everything and get that nice organized eye-candy-ish look with all your albums properly tagged and added with album illustrations in iTunes When you have an iPhone it makes the experience so much better on your iPhone too as I before just could never find tracks as they were all over the place....I can recommend using EasyTAG for that. I did a lot of research and trying on that too as there are more alternatives but EasyTAG does the file renaming job too. Takes some practice to get it right but once you've got it it's easy, you can go through your library really quick. Don't use iTunes for that, it's slow and doesn't give you as much overview in my opinion.
Cheers
Well, I guess some people (or probably a hell lot of 'em ) will be happy to read this... http://blog.winamp.com/2011/10/26/introducing-winamp-for-mac-sync-beta/
Downloading it now and see if it's something worthy. At least they've made the step, hopefully they develop it further.
) will be happy to read this... http://blog.winamp.com/2011/10/26/introducing-winamp-for-mac-sync-beta/Downloading it now and see if it's something worthy. At least they've made the step, hopefully they develop it further.
Well, I guess some people (or probably a hell lot of 'em
Downloading it now and see if it's something worthy. At least they've made the step, hopefully they develop it further.
Unfortunately not a big deal as far as I can see. I second that it's a good point to Nullsoft that the player appeared on Mac at all, I coudn't manage to play a FLAC file with it. All in all it looks good (well, design was always one of Winamp's main area
), but it seems to me a very basic player with playlist support, and that's all. I hope they'll invest time and effort to develop it, but until it remains in this dev state, I stay by Clementine which supports a wide variety of formats. Apart from some annoying bugs in the latter one, it reminds me to foobar2000 which I always favoured over Winamp in my PC-period.
Is it just me or?
Am I imagining things but does iTunes sound worse compared to other players? I've noticed it ages ago when I was still using Windows (used Foobar2000) then.
iTunes seem to lack a bit more punch and distorts a little. Same MP3 320k file. And now I'm on a Mac (using Enqueue). Same thing I noticed on my iMac. iTunes issue?
(And it's not just me imagining things is it? When I hear a FLAC version being louder, clearer and punchier than a MP3 equivelant?)
I'm not bashing iTunes btw, it's still my main library for my iPod / iPad (great with Remote App or to stream to iPad) and to store my 7300+ songs (48.98Gb). Just that I have a separate Enqueue FLAC library. Just sounds better somehow.
Am I imagining things but does iTunes sound worse compared to other players? I've noticed it ages ago when I was still using Windows (used Foobar2000) then.
iTunes seem to lack a bit more punch and distorts a little. Same MP3 320k file. And now I'm on a Mac (using Enqueue). Same thing I noticed on my iMac. iTunes issue?
(And it's not just me imagining things is it? When I hear a FLAC version being louder, clearer and punchier than a MP3 equivelant?)
I'm not bashing iTunes btw, it's still my main library for my iPod / iPad (great with Remote App or to stream to iPad) and to store my 7300+ songs (48.98Gb). Just that I have a separate Enqueue FLAC library. Just sounds better somehow.
Winamp for mac
There is a version of winamp on mac unfortunately its not as good as the windows version. you can try it here. http://www.winamp.com/mac
There is a version of winamp on mac unfortunately its not as good as the windows version. you can try it here. http://www.winamp.com/mac
I'm currently using COG on a Mac Mini 2010 2.4. This is clearly better than iTunes and is nicely detailed in the treble with good tone in the midrange. It opens up the music more - iTunes sounds slightly choked and shut in by comparison.
Is there anything that's a step up from COG sound-wise? I'd be looking for more clarity and musicality and tone to instruments. I listen to a lot of classical music.
I tried Audirvana but apart from sounding no better than iTunes in its standard download, it overloads my system and a red logo flashes "CPU over". Can this be tweaked in preferences and options so it works, and if it did, would it sound superior to COG?
I know COG is Zombieware now, but it sounds great.
Is there anything that's a step up from COG sound-wise? I'd be looking for more clarity and musicality and tone to instruments. I listen to a lot of classical music.
I tried Audirvana but apart from sounding no better than iTunes in its standard download, it overloads my system and a red logo flashes "CPU over". Can this be tweaked in preferences and options so it works, and if it did, would it sound superior to COG?
I know COG is Zombieware now, but it sounds great.
Unless you have some iTunes specific audio filters on, I have a hard time believing you're finding a difference in the quality of your music from music player to music player.
Audiophiles use different media players because of their features and ease of use for 24/96 files, not because of sound quality differences (if there is such a thing)
As tkermit said, get better recordings. I'll add to it by saying get better gear.
Audiophiles use different media players because of their features and ease of use for 24/96 files, not because of sound quality differences (if there is such a thing)
As tkermit said, get better recordings. I'll add to it by saying get better gear.
Especially as different players are simply using OS X's core audio/quicktime to play audio. There should be no difference in "quality". Even less things like "detailed treble" and "good midrange tone". Unless there are other processing effects going on like EQ of course.
I'm not surprised at all the responses which say "in principle there should be no difference". At the same time, I simply experiment. I'm a musician with good ears and I'm very familiar with the sound of instruments since I heard them for hours every night during my working life. So I'm very attentive to low level detail in complex mixes, and that's what I listen out for in A-B tests. I'm as cynical as the next man, so I need to have an audible difference repeated several times before I'll believe there's anything in it.
So my ears are telling me there's a SLIGHT audible difference between these music players. It's not immediately obvious and you have to listen carefully several times to low level detail in complex mixes. You're very welcome to perform the same A-B tests and tell me what you're hearing. The other thing is that in some cases there's no audible difference, and if that's the case there's no point in trying to invent it. I hear absolutely no difference between Audirvana and Audirvana+.
Most of these simple programs are quickly downloaded for experimental listening. I downloaded VOX and found it just slightly less resolving of low level detail than COG on repeated listening to the same track. You have to listen hard though - it's far from obvious from a couple of casual listens.
Keep your impressions coming!
Best
Andy
So my ears are telling me there's a SLIGHT audible difference between these music players. It's not immediately obvious and you have to listen carefully several times to low level detail in complex mixes. You're very welcome to perform the same A-B tests and tell me what you're hearing. The other thing is that in some cases there's no audible difference, and if that's the case there's no point in trying to invent it. I hear absolutely no difference between Audirvana and Audirvana+.
Most of these simple programs are quickly downloaded for experimental listening. I downloaded VOX and found it just slightly less resolving of low level detail than COG on repeated listening to the same track. You have to listen hard though - it's far from obvious from a couple of casual listens.
Keep your impressions coming!
Best
Andy
Experienced working musician and amateur sound engineer here. I had spin with Cog. A-B-ing between iTunes there were no differences I could hear on a couple of decent pairs of headphones and studio monitors.
EDIT : Very important for a level playing field.
In iTunes, set the EQ OFF, Sound Enhancer OFF, Sound Check OFF and Volume 100%.
In Cog, leave the volume at its default value when the app opens. Higher is 100% + like in VLC.
EDIT : Very important for a level playing field.
In iTunes, set the EQ OFF, Sound Enhancer OFF, Sound Check OFF and Volume 100%.
In Cog, leave the volume at its default value when the app opens. Higher is 100% + like in VLC.
Last edited:
Hi Jolly Jimmy!
Thanks for trying out an A-B. I'm sure there are more than a few sound engineers and musicians here with good ears. These differences are on the threshold of hearing for sure. It's an evergreen topic, but posts that say "30% improvement" and such (yes they do exist) are pretty wild. I'm not expecting anything more than tiny or imperceptible. The only thing I can say is that several tiny differences become incremental in a system, so I try hard to detect even the slightest preference and go with it. I've found it's worth it in the long run.
Andy
Thanks for trying out an A-B. I'm sure there are more than a few sound engineers and musicians here with good ears. These differences are on the threshold of hearing for sure. It's an evergreen topic, but posts that say "30% improvement" and such (yes they do exist) are pretty wild. I'm not expecting anything more than tiny or imperceptible. The only thing I can say is that several tiny differences become incremental in a system, so I try hard to detect even the slightest preference and go with it. I've found it's worth it in the long run.
Andy
Snake oil!
If I could find this one distortion test site I used for hearing testing, I would pull it up. But I can't find it right now, and the site I thought it was is no longer online.
I got down to around -50db, while the average person was -8db or something. It's highly dependent on gear, of course. Even with top end headphones like HD800 and LCD-2, a lot of audiophiles would say the differences between a 16bit file and a 24/96 file are virtually invisible. I have a Beyer and Denon myself, and a PSB speaker array. I line out all my music to a music streamer DAC.
If I could find this one distortion test site I used for hearing testing, I would pull it up. But I can't find it right now, and the site I thought it was is no longer online.
I got down to around -50db, while the average person was -8db or something. It's highly dependent on gear, of course. Even with top end headphones like HD800 and LCD-2, a lot of audiophiles would say the differences between a 16bit file and a 24/96 file are virtually invisible. I have a Beyer and Denon myself, and a PSB speaker array. I line out all my music to a music streamer DAC.