Investing in such players is not a very huge investment, but the differences are noteworthy. I am pretty sure there are similar high end players out there. Knowing that I am playing this on a Mcintosh amplifier with plenty of dynamics and deep soundtage, the differences are nothing less than remarkable. The midrange is thinner the treble is not as present or smooth. Going back to iTunes, it sounds like a CD – flat sound in contrast. The instruments and voices are separated, and there is plenty of air in the soundstage. Using the same input hi res files for both players, Audirvana reminds me of a vinyl record (without the noise). Keep in mind that I benchmarked with 22/24 bit music. I benchmarked with the Quad ESL, and while they very revealing compared to most affordable+ speakers, I am pretty sure the differences are obvious on most over average loudspeakers as well. There is a significant difference between iTunes and Audirvana Plus. In my opinion this is wrong (after using the trial version of the program). From my point of view, a player is a player – and why should I try something else than iTunes (as long the sound quality is High Res), right?
#AUDIRVANA PLUS VS AMARRA PRO#
While upgrading my system with a new MA7900, I was "tripping over" some good feedback regarding Audivana Plus - a music player for the Macbook pro / OS X.
0 kommentar(er)
