August 2015 SAC Meeting
In our August club meeting, we conducted a comparison of different music servers, different codecs and also a CD to CD ripped to disc to high-res. We had only 75 minutes to squeeze all that in, so we were busy folk! When we announced the meeting format, there were people writing and calling to say we were wasting our time – the contention was that all music players sound the same. So why were we wasting our time! Well, my ears tell me that they don’t all sound the same. And when I opened the meeting with that contentious statement there were a few cleared throats, smiles and puzzled looks around the room. Clearly there was no consensus, but the body language indicated equally clearly that we had a room of people keen to find out!
Before we get into that… only two days earlier my wife and I had some good friends over for dinner and a spot of music. Dinner extended into the late night, but rather than forego all listening pleasure I suggested that we listen to two of the three music players we would have on offer at our August club meeting. They were keen. I sat them down and played just a single track from Ray Brown’s Soular Energy - first through music player 1 then music player 2. There was a clear preference for player 2. Words like transparency, openness, vibrancy, integration, dynamics were spoken. A promising start I thought, and evidence I wasn’t deluding myself. (Always good to know.)
Fast forward to our Sunday meeting… we had about 45 very interested and enthusiastic members and guests. First up we compared Pure Music V2 to Audirvana V2 to JRiver V20. Of course Pure Music and Audirvana are Mac only, so we compared them to the Mac version of JRiver. All listening was blind – no one other than me knew which music server was being played. In fact, all the gear was facing away from the audience. We played 2 tracks through each player in turn - the tracks were CS&N Helplessly Hoping (24/96 FLAC) and Ray Brown’s Exactly Like You (24/192 FLAC). The players were referred to as simply 1, 2 and 3. At the end I asked if people could hear a difference between the players – the answer was a resounding ‘yes’. When asked if they had a preference for one player over another, again the answer was a resounding ‘yes’. At that point everyone wanted to know which player was which.
So we then took a vote. Player 1 won 4 votes, player 2 won 14 votes, player 3 won 14 votes. I abstained from voting, preferring to leave the winners as a tie. Clearly players 2 and 3 were preferred. It was great to see the audience so intent to discover what they’d been listening to! The most favoured at 14 votes each were Audirvana and Pure Music. There was some surprise around the room – perhaps some thought the ubiquitous JRiver would clear the tables, so to speak. I indicated to the audience that my impression is that JRiver on the Mac isn’t quite the equal of the Windows version.
There was some concern about the order in which the players were played. It seems that (statistically speaking) player 1 will not fair was well as players 2 or 3. So to settle any doubt in people’s minds, I suggested we listen to another track through each player with the player announced at the start. And I ensured that JRiver was NOT the first player. All were keen to hear the Mozart Requiem on offer (24/192 FLAC) – a short track of full-on choral and orchestration. After being played through all the players, the opinion of the audience was pretty much unmoved from before. That track appeared to settle the audience, and people were accepting of the results. When you think about, the result should have been expected. JRiver has devoted many years perfecting the Windows version to where it is today - yet the Mac version is comparatively young. With time, it’ll undoubtedly become the equal of the Windows version. Without a doubt, JRiver already has the best library management system of these 3 players.
There was some discussion about why the players would sound different. Someone in the audience said something about “bit perfect” and perhaps there are differences there . This argument is frequently trotted out to explain differences. However, all three of these players claim to be “bit perfect”. The concern regarding “bit perfect” is whether the timing of those bits is accurate. Another factor of course is noise. Software programs can be written in a myriad of different ways, depending on the goal of the designer. Crazy as it might sound, but some implementations of software can stress memory and CPU more than others – this in turn can cause undue electrical noise. And of course, that noise can then bleed into the music signal. (Before you call me crazy, google it! (http://www.computeraudiophile.com is a good place to start.)
We then did a blind comparison between DSD64 and a high-res 24/96 PCM version of Steely Dan’s Gaucho. Now I won’t claim that I know the provenance of these versions – both are downloads and more often than not there is no information provided. This is an oft heard and valid gripe regarding downloads – download sites should provide adequate information about the provenance of their recordings but they rarely do. This was a less conclusive contest – the DSD64 version won 18 votes, the high-res PCM version won 17 votes. Interestingly, people could describe the differences in the sound presentations and they had their definite preference. But their preferences balanced out the score in the end. In short both were excellent sounding.
We were running out of time, but we decided to hold one more comparison before our break. We compared a CD to the same CD ripped to disc to the high-res PCM (24/176.4) version of Dave Brubeck’s track Take Five. The CD was an excellent disc from Analogue Productions printed in Austria. In this instance, I didn’t try to hide the playing of the CD (it’s difficult to hide you’re playing a CD rather than a file). But the rip and the high-res version were blind. This was a fairly conclusive contest – the CD won only 1 vote, the ripped CD won 9 votes and the high-res PCM won 13 votes.
At that point, I think everyone was exhausted. It was time for our break.
Btw - I’d planned that we’d also compare the FLAC and WAV version of the same recording, as well as a CD ripped with XLD (on Mac) and to the same CD ripped with dbPoweramp (Mac version). But unfortunately these evaluations had to be dropped due to a lack of time. Hopefully we can return to this someday soon.
So, remember those friends over for dinner and a spot of music? They preferred Pure Music over Audirvana (next time I’ll play Pure Music first then Audirvana, although I don’t think it’ll make a difference). Both are exceptional players and without a doubt Audirvana v2.2 has the better library management system (compared to Pure Music integrated with iTunes).
Details of the system for the day were:
Before we get into that… only two days earlier my wife and I had some good friends over for dinner and a spot of music. Dinner extended into the late night, but rather than forego all listening pleasure I suggested that we listen to two of the three music players we would have on offer at our August club meeting. They were keen. I sat them down and played just a single track from Ray Brown’s Soular Energy - first through music player 1 then music player 2. There was a clear preference for player 2. Words like transparency, openness, vibrancy, integration, dynamics were spoken. A promising start I thought, and evidence I wasn’t deluding myself. (Always good to know.)
Fast forward to our Sunday meeting… we had about 45 very interested and enthusiastic members and guests. First up we compared Pure Music V2 to Audirvana V2 to JRiver V20. Of course Pure Music and Audirvana are Mac only, so we compared them to the Mac version of JRiver. All listening was blind – no one other than me knew which music server was being played. In fact, all the gear was facing away from the audience. We played 2 tracks through each player in turn - the tracks were CS&N Helplessly Hoping (24/96 FLAC) and Ray Brown’s Exactly Like You (24/192 FLAC). The players were referred to as simply 1, 2 and 3. At the end I asked if people could hear a difference between the players – the answer was a resounding ‘yes’. When asked if they had a preference for one player over another, again the answer was a resounding ‘yes’. At that point everyone wanted to know which player was which.
So we then took a vote. Player 1 won 4 votes, player 2 won 14 votes, player 3 won 14 votes. I abstained from voting, preferring to leave the winners as a tie. Clearly players 2 and 3 were preferred. It was great to see the audience so intent to discover what they’d been listening to! The most favoured at 14 votes each were Audirvana and Pure Music. There was some surprise around the room – perhaps some thought the ubiquitous JRiver would clear the tables, so to speak. I indicated to the audience that my impression is that JRiver on the Mac isn’t quite the equal of the Windows version.
There was some concern about the order in which the players were played. It seems that (statistically speaking) player 1 will not fair was well as players 2 or 3. So to settle any doubt in people’s minds, I suggested we listen to another track through each player with the player announced at the start. And I ensured that JRiver was NOT the first player. All were keen to hear the Mozart Requiem on offer (24/192 FLAC) – a short track of full-on choral and orchestration. After being played through all the players, the opinion of the audience was pretty much unmoved from before. That track appeared to settle the audience, and people were accepting of the results. When you think about, the result should have been expected. JRiver has devoted many years perfecting the Windows version to where it is today - yet the Mac version is comparatively young. With time, it’ll undoubtedly become the equal of the Windows version. Without a doubt, JRiver already has the best library management system of these 3 players.
There was some discussion about why the players would sound different. Someone in the audience said something about “bit perfect” and perhaps there are differences there . This argument is frequently trotted out to explain differences. However, all three of these players claim to be “bit perfect”. The concern regarding “bit perfect” is whether the timing of those bits is accurate. Another factor of course is noise. Software programs can be written in a myriad of different ways, depending on the goal of the designer. Crazy as it might sound, but some implementations of software can stress memory and CPU more than others – this in turn can cause undue electrical noise. And of course, that noise can then bleed into the music signal. (Before you call me crazy, google it! (http://www.computeraudiophile.com is a good place to start.)
We then did a blind comparison between DSD64 and a high-res 24/96 PCM version of Steely Dan’s Gaucho. Now I won’t claim that I know the provenance of these versions – both are downloads and more often than not there is no information provided. This is an oft heard and valid gripe regarding downloads – download sites should provide adequate information about the provenance of their recordings but they rarely do. This was a less conclusive contest – the DSD64 version won 18 votes, the high-res PCM version won 17 votes. Interestingly, people could describe the differences in the sound presentations and they had their definite preference. But their preferences balanced out the score in the end. In short both were excellent sounding.
We were running out of time, but we decided to hold one more comparison before our break. We compared a CD to the same CD ripped to disc to the high-res PCM (24/176.4) version of Dave Brubeck’s track Take Five. The CD was an excellent disc from Analogue Productions printed in Austria. In this instance, I didn’t try to hide the playing of the CD (it’s difficult to hide you’re playing a CD rather than a file). But the rip and the high-res version were blind. This was a fairly conclusive contest – the CD won only 1 vote, the ripped CD won 9 votes and the high-res PCM won 13 votes.
At that point, I think everyone was exhausted. It was time for our break.
Btw - I’d planned that we’d also compare the FLAC and WAV version of the same recording, as well as a CD ripped with XLD (on Mac) and to the same CD ripped with dbPoweramp (Mac version). But unfortunately these evaluations had to be dropped due to a lack of time. Hopefully we can return to this someday soon.
So, remember those friends over for dinner and a spot of music? They preferred Pure Music over Audirvana (next time I’ll play Pure Music first then Audirvana, although I don’t think it’ll make a difference). Both are exceptional players and without a doubt Audirvana v2.2 has the better library management system (compared to Pure Music integrated with iTunes).
Details of the system for the day were:
- Kudos Audio C20 speakers – Refer to http://www.kudosaudio.com/loudspeakers/c20/ and http://www.hifiplus.com/articles/kudos-audio-cardea-anniversary-super-20-lou dspeakers/
- Audible Illusions L3A preamp – Refer to http://www.audibleillusions.com/products/l3-line-stage-preamplifier/
- Plinius SA100 Power amp – Refer to http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/497plinius/ and http://www.audioreview.com/cat/amplification/amplifiers/plinius/sa-100-mk-ii i/prd_116087_1583crx.aspx
- Mac Mini (late 2012 version) – with i7 processors, 16GB memory, SSD system disc. Music on SSD with Thunderbolt connectivity. Connected to DAC via Vertere Pulse HB USB cable.
- Bricasti Design M1 DAC – Refer to http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/australian-hifi_reviews_2014_2014-07_bricast i_design_m1_dac_review_test_lores.pdf and http://www.audiostream.com/content/bricasti-design-m1-dac
- Oppo BDP-105 Universal player – Refer to https://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-105/ and http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/oppo-bdp-105-universal-blu-ray-play er-and-dac/
- Nordost Red Dawn speaker cables and interconnects and WireWorld interconnects.