Source
r/audiophile•
PinBobAwl

Spent 25 Minutes A/B Testing Itunes And Audirvana. Results Inconclusive.

Impressions

I mainly download Audirvana to try the Remote function, which you still can't do within Tidal or Qobuz, but I thought I'd try testing playback of local files as well, since I have been told that "iTunes sounds like crap." Since I've always been happy with its performance and sceptical that software makes a difference in digital playback (hardware is another matter), I gave them a quick comparison.

The song I used was Rules by Kruangbin (ALAC 24/48). I used a 2020 MacBook Pro, going into a Luxman D-N150, feeding a Luxman SQ-N150, driving Fyne Audio 701s. Cables by Luxman and Tellurium Q.

I listened to the song six times, three times on iTunes and three times on Audirvana, going from one to the other. I was on my own so this wasn't a 'blind' test, but if iTunes really was as bad as I had been told it shouldn't have mattered. Honestly I was trying really hard to listen for differences. But I didn't hear any. One moment I thought the highs were crisper on Audirvana, then I'd listen on iTunes, and no, they were just as crisp. Another moment I thought it was more engaging, whatever that means–I was tapping my foot more using Audirvana! Then I'd switch back to iTunes and I half way through I'd start tapping my foot again.

So I'm really not sure what to think. Maybe I'm not as attuned as other people to slight differences in sound. Maybe my brain wanted me to think I didn't need to spend more money on my HiFi setup. Or maybe I was just right, and there is no difference after all.

Posted Apr 11, 2021, 6:43 PM UTC

224
WAtHome•

I also use iTunes, and the player does not and should not alter the signal in any way. If source is lossless in iTunes, then output is lossless.

There is a variable, in that iTunes’s output will match your Audio MIDI setting (up sampled or downsampled). Where as Audirvana will default to the source.

Regardless, you are correct. You should not hear any difference between the two players.

4
PinBobAwlOP•

Yep, that's the one inconvenience with iTunes–the way you have to manually. go into Audio Midi Settings to select the output bit and sample setting. But yes I am sceptical that the player makes a difference, for all the praise on Audirvana's website. Nice having a remote feature for Qobuz, tho!

1
MeasurementPristine1•

Thanks for posting this. I currently use Music and iTunes with both libraries set up in my remote app on my iPhone and iPad, I love the convenience and Bitperfect switches my MIDI settings to match what I’m playing. I’m really pleased with the output over optical to my DAC, and after lots of EQ fiddling I’m really pleased with the sound.

I’ve been hankering over Audirvana for a good while, so I read your comparison report with interest. I think I’ll stick with iTunes and Music for now!

2
PinBobAwlOP•

Yes, it may be a minority opinion in these circles but I think the Music app and Remote app are the best available–super clean looks and both work flawlessly. I haven't tried Bit Perfect but I might do in the future–I know Paul from PS Audio recommends it, but I went on the App Store to have a look and the reviews were not great–apparently it's not updated to work with the latest OS very often. And I just have such a small HiRes library that I don't use it that much–95% of my listening is on Qobuz.

By all means download the trial of Audirvana and compare yourself–it's very easy to do, and unlike Roon its easy to run on a computer.

1
MeasurementPristine1•

I’m running Bitperfect on Big Sur with no real problems, it does switch the output resolution of the Mac to match what Music is playing on the fly, so at £10 I’d recommend it if your high res library grows to the point where it becomes an issue. It does sometimes glitch in that it will loop the first 5 seconds of a song, but only if I’m already messing about with the MIDI output settings myself! If I let Bitperfect do it, it runs really well.

It does however only work with Music and not iTunes at the same time, so I have to manually toggle if I’m running something from iTunes, and iTunes is where all my high res stuff is. To be honest I’ve listened to music ripped to ALAC at 16/44.1 and forgotten to switch the sampling rate from 24/96 on more than one occasion, and haven’t noticed much of a difference. Still seriously impressed with the Mac Mini as a media centre.

1
PinBobAwlOP•

That's good to hear. When you say it only works with Music and not iTunes what do you mean exactly? I thought they were the same thing, that Music was the new name for iTunes. (When I'm talking about it I still tend to call it iTunes because that's what people remember it as.)

1
MeasurementPristine1•

I think it’s configured out of the box to recognise what Music is playing, but not iTunes, but I haven’t extensively tested that so I might be wrong.

Yes you’re right, when Apple Music was universally rolled out it absorbed iTunes and made updating iPods very difficult. iPod purists such as myself cried many tears. Bad times. Also, it took me literally months to find the options for making it look the way iTunes did, with sorting by album/artist/year and displaying cute artwork.

But Lo! I discovered a method someone had posted a method whereby a user could run the new Music app, but also install iTunes at the same time via Retroactive. And the gods smiled and it worked!

So now I have both iTunes and Music installed on the same Mac, with everything added to my iCloud music library kept in Music (which updates my library across all my iThings) - everything at 16/44.1 to a max of 24/48 is kept here. Everything at high res (including my vinyl rips and anything I’ve bought from HDTracks or Pro Studio Masters for example, or stuff I’m not arsed about accessing everywhere I go) is in my iTunes library, separate from my Music library. iTunes is also my iPod updating software.

My iTunes library is much smaller than my Music library and basically contains stuff that sounds better on speakers than headphones. I can also use it as a backup of stuff I don’t want to risk deleting my accident in Music either.

1
ev3rm0r3•

Itunes doesn't host audio that is 24/48. And not being able to hear a difference isn't a bad thing. But there are times when capturing audio in a lossier quality format can lose out frequencies and affect the music. The idea is to listen to music in its purest form of uncompressed audio. it's not always just about hearing a difference. It's about not sacrificing quality in the first place.

1
PinBobAwlOP•

iTunes does do 24/48. And 24/96 and 24/192. (It doesn't do DSD, however.) My Luxman DAC gives a readout of the incoming bit depth and sample rate on the front panel.

1
Raj_DTO•

That’s not what he meant. He said, iTunes doesn’t “host” audio that is 24/48. It implies lossless files and my understanding is the same that ITunes has lossy ALAC encoding. What you’re talking about it how iTunes plays back.

2
Mark_M01•

How is Apple ALAC lossy? When I import my CDs I use ALAC and iTunes lists it as a lossless file.

1
Raj_DTO•

Sorry - my mistake. “AAC” not ALAC. You’re right ALAC is lossless.

1
PinBobAwlOP•

I don't understand what you mean by 'host'–are you talking about the Apple Music subscription service? That uses the lossy AAC format; ALAC, like FLAC, is lossless.

1
Raj_DTO•

Yes - you’re right. I was talking about subscription. Do you mean to say that when you “buy” from iTunes Store, you see that the files are encoded in lossless ALAC format? If yes, I wasn’t aware of that and thanks for making that distinction. BTW, I do use ALAC to encode the music that I buy so that I can play them both at home using foobar and in car on iPhone.

1
MeasurementPristine1•

Also interested to know how ALAC is a lossy format, and how iTunes doesn’t “host” 24/48 files, when my library is stuffed full of them. And a sizeable collection at 24/96 and 24/192. The iTunes Store doesn’t sell music at those bitrates, sure, but iTunes hosts and plays them back just fine.

ALAC is a compressed, lossless format in exactly the same way FLAC is. If you want to rip and store music in uncompressed formats then you’ll be after WAV or AIFF, and you’d also be having a much bigger hard drive or a much smaller music collection than me.

1
PinBobAwlOP•

Yeah, the guy was mistaking iTunes for Apple Music–he assumed the files I was playing came from the latter, when in fact I downloaded them from Bandcamp. The Apple media ecosystem can get confusing sometimes so it's an understandable error.

I really hope Apple Music offers an HD streaming service in the future–it would mean I don't have to switch between two programs to play my local files and streaming content without having to use things like Audirvana or Roon.

1
ChickenPicture•

I don't know if it can be done in Mac but in Windows there is a handy little API called WASAPI which gives an application direct hardware level access to the audio section. Going A/B between iTunes and Foobar2k with WASAPI bit perfect output there is a notable difference. However that may be Microsoft's audio engine adding things, not itunes.

1
Raj_DTO•

I don’t see WASAPI option in iTunes, are you able to see that? If yes, how did you make that happen?

1
ChickenPicture•

It isn't available in iTunes, I use Foobar2000

2