Being an audiophile grade app is all the more reason to offer a demo. Audiophiles are notoriously picky about their gear, and if I'm looking for something that sounds better than iTunes I want to try it before I buy it.
Hasn't been updated in a year, and maybe that's the cause of its bugginess of late.
Didn't use to have so many problems. But now it continually has conflicts with iTunes and the system volume. And tracks unexpecdly stop and another starts playing.
IMO it pretty-much sucks now, and I'm uninstalling it because I'm sick of the aggravation.
Regarding iTunes and "Bit Perfect." iTunes already plays back tracks perfectly. These "bit Perfect" apps are snake oil.
See for yourself:
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s25/sh/3d5d72ee-4b3a-406b-b5ff-b87e8b8433ed/5e98b67e3e9e35ac13277b3e8a415f90
Is this a joke? For Audiofile level recordings you need analog standard (not cassette) tape or vinyl. Anything else is compressed and sampled, unless it is stated to be audiophile quality on the source-i.e. lossless audio format from the source., which is not anything on iTunes or MP3. If you are over 50 forget audiophile due to hearing age degradation-i.e you can't hear it anyway. Any other claims for recording or equipment is marketing hype. Finally you have to own speakers or headphones that are capable of audiophile playback ranges with minimal distortion. If you don't have that, nothing else matters as that is what your ears actually hear. If you really want audiophile and can hear it, that is where your money should go first. mediocre headphones or speakers on the end of high end amps and players will not reproduce audiophile quality sound. It simply is not possible. In other words, forget audiophile, unless you are young, still have good hearing, and have a lot of expendable cash lying around for top equipment starting with output devices and following back to the source. Other than that, it is not audiophile, so stop wasting your money on something that cannot be.
Like
Version 3.0.3
2 answer(s)
Lvdoc
23 April 2016
You are absolutely correct that Bit Perfect or its competitors will make no difference if you're not invested in the machinery to accompany it. But for those who do have higher-end systems, it's important to give this program its due. So I want to offer some perspective from that standpoint.
I use a different bit perfect player for several reasons, but I have tried Bit Perfect, and it does work. Indeed, from what I've read, the developer created this because of the exceptional cost of so many competitors. (Compare $10 to Pure Music's $129 price tag.)
I'm pushing 60 and also have hearing degradation. I am not trying to disparage you, but it may be important to see an audiologist. I spent years with way-too-loud music that damaged my ability to hear higher frequencies, and hearing aids have made an exceptional difference in my quality of life.
And since music is so much a part of the quality of my life, I appreciate bit perfect players of any kind. I've had to learn to listen to music in an entirely different way. I now have to keep the volume levels low, so being able to squeeze exceptional sound out of my system is critical to me. Bit perfect quality is a major part of that.
I know that people have done all kinds of analyses, comparing file types, bit perfect vs. non-bit-perfect, etc. using wave form readouts and the like. Ultimately, the subjective experience is the only deciding factor. I'm a very picky listener, and for me, bit perfect quality simply sounds better.
The primary factor to be considered in whether one wants to go with bit perfect and high-end audio systems is summarized nicely in a quote I found (but can't attribute because I don't recall the source):
A music lover listens to music with his sound system.
An audiophile listens to his sound system with music.
Bit Perfect and the like depend on which camp you're in. Your review makes total sense for the first camp. I'm in the second and have to evaluate it as such.
Like (1)
RavenNevermore
29 April 2016
Jimw, regardless to what hipsters think, vinyl is not "audiophile level," and actually audio cassettes have high fidelity. Vinyl is an antiquated mechanical format. And the master tapes from the studio have to be processed before the vinyl master is cut; they are heavily limited, so the dynamic range is not good. The low end is rolled off so the grooves do get too wide, and the treble is boosted to mask surface noise. So right away it sounds nothing like it did in the studio. Then it's run through a servo setup to cut the grooves.
On playback we have a whole other set of compromises, and the tracks near the center of the record sound worse than the outside tracks! It's akin to listening to two tin cans and string! It's 100 year old technology.
On the other hand, a high bitrate (256 or higher) MP3 or AAC file sounds just like the CD, which sounds just like the recordings did in the studio.
In most cases you wont hear a difference between lossless and lossy formats, unless the compressed file was rendered with poor software, or the compression rate is too low.
Regarding analog vs. digital; digital is an exact copy. Analog isn't. Analog is lossy by nature. Even tape will introduce noise, flutter, and distortion. And today even cheap consumer grade AD/DA converters do an exact copy. Check out Chuck Zwicky's test where he ran a piano recording through a cheap AD/DA converter 100 times! You can't hear a difference, or see it on the wave form when compared with the original.
As far as this software, I haven't tried it. But iTunes has perfect audio quality, as long as the audio files are good.
Outstanding in almost every way. It gives you almost all of the advantages of iTunes (since it runs as a parasite on the iTunes interface), but enables you to avoid some of the limitations inherent to iTunes. What does this give you that iTunes does not?
1. Automatic bit-perfect playback. If your iTunes library contains tracks that have various sampling frequencies (normal CDs and most iTunes store tracks are 44.1 kHz sampled, "higher resolution" can be 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz or even higher), iTunes will only be able to play one of these bit-perfectly, depending on the settings in Audio MIDI setup. Everything else will get resampled, unless you quit iTunes, change Audio MIDI setup to the new sample frequency manually, and then restart iTunes. You have to repeat the process each time you play a track with a different sampling frequency, or else your music will get re-sampled. This takes care of the problem automatically. If you are using Airplay exclusively, this isn't for you, since everything gets resampled to 44.1 kHz anyway (and if you use Apple TV, gets resampled a second time to 48 kHz). Those who will really benefit from this will generally have a collection including lossless higher-resolution files. If all you have are mp3 or AAC compressed audio, you aren't going to be able to hear any difference.
2. Memory playback. Some people believe pre-loading part or all of the track into the memory buffer improves playback. I'm not so convinced, but it doesn't hurt.
3. Playback of DSD audio files on a DSD-capable DAC.
4. Better upsampling and digital volume control (although you will always be messing with the bits doing that).
The author wrote this software because he was annoyed that some other companies were charing hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars for this same functionality.
Like (2)
Version 2.0
1 answer(s)
lurkingremlin
23 April 2014
Version 2.0.1 seems to not be totally stable (on my system at least) - sometimes it suddenly stops processing audio altogether. Quitting BitPerfect and letting iTunes do the playing still works - no relaunch or reboot necessary
Pity, as BitPerfect really makes a positive difference IMHO !
Cant honestly see much difference other than it prevents multi speakers working over wifi?
My music predominately stored at 256kbps AAC and played on the iMac with Harman Kardon SoundSticks III 2.1 Channel Sound System.
I regularly patch it through to the Living room via an Airport extreme Wi-Fi and a cheap £40 DAC into Naim Audio Nait 3 amp to my Polk Audio R8 speakers.
Can anyone give advice or recommend a DAC?
Like
Version 1.0.5
1 answer(s)
lurkingremlin
28 September 2014
Maybe my reply comes waaaaaaaaaaaaa..........y too late. However, I've yet to find a better DAC below $500 than the teeny-tiny Resonessence Herus (Disclamier: I'm not by any means affiliated with the manufactorer, so don't flame me). Just answering someone's question.
Version 1.0.3 seems buggy to me. previous version was fine. With bit perfect on my computer, the music is skipping back a few seconds or back to start. I have large collection and it is on a NAS, and that can cause problems, but version 1.0.2 was fine with same setup. What gives?
A nice solution for up converting music sample rates and bit depths. Unlike similar audiophile apps, you can still use iTunes as your music browser. True, you don't need this to playback music that is already 24 bit/high sample rate, but I can hear an improvement when lower fidelity songs are up converted.
Like
Version 1.0.3
2 answer(s)
wendylou
27 May 2012
I wish to add that, compared to my 96 kHz DAC, when I enable BitPerfect, I hear brighter, more clearly defined percussion, such as high hats, cymbals, snares, bells, as well as strings and other high frequency sounds. BitPerfect sounds more clear than using just my outboard DAC alone. Perhaps it's due to BitPerfect's sample rate conversion and/or all it's refinements. Seems like a better audio engine than iTunes and Mac. You can easily do listening comparisons yourself by disabling, then enabling BitPerfect on the same segment of music.
Like
Acuraice
02 December 2012
Wendy please this is the only way i can get in contact with you,you have helped me before to get volume logic back and running by having itunes launch in 32 bit mode,but now with the latest itunes 11.0 release the app is now only working in 64 bit mode,thus disabling volume logic once again since its not a 64 bit plugin and never will be. i just dont understand why the newest version of itunes wont even launch if open in 32 bit mode is checked off,i mean why is it still an option in the get info settings if it doesnt work anymore?? stupid apple. But anyway if can find any possible workaround to get our beloved volume logic plugin working as before as with all previous versions of itunes up until now. i would be willing to actually pay you for a solution. I thank you very much for your previous solution that has given me years of volume logic use!! Feel free to email me anytime @ ilovecocoakrispy@yahoo.com The developers of volume logic should really make a come back and make the plugin 64 bit and charge a reasonable price for it on the mac app store and many many users would be thrilled. why would they ever go out of business?? All other plugins simply dont work well or have ridiculous presets that sound too bassy or too much treble,i refuse to use any of them bc i know volume logic is superior in every way. thanks again wendy!
Far too limited in its settings and completely disables ANY other equalizer on the system (i.e. iTunes, Hear, etc.) from functioning at all.
Like (2)
Version 1.0.2
3 answer(s)
Ronl
25 March 2012
I'm now using "Hear." Great app! It takes some trial-and-error because there are so many options... but once you get it set up... EXCELLENT!
Like (1)
Molamola
28 May 2012
It claims to have a "bit perfect" output - think of it as a "pure direct" setting on an amplifier: no fiddling around with sound, as close to the recording as possible. So disabling everything which alters the sound is done by purpose. You will want this if you have decent speakers in an optimal setup. Hear is a complete different story; hundreds of filters and effects to change the audio to something which might sound better on your (limited) setup, but which has not to much in common with the original recording you are listening to.
Like (1)
Ronl
28 May 2012
Though I concede that my speakers are not top end... I do use some relatively expensive Sennheiser headsets and "Hear" makes them sound even better on many songs and streaming media. Whereas with BitPerfect I'm stuck with one setting. Of course I could go out and buy a tube preamp and an equalizer to achieve the same results as Hear (for many hundreds or possibly another thousand dollars) but why bother?
BitPerfect has a purpose... it's for a person that has a PERFECT audio system external to their computer. For everyone else... I highly recommend Hear (and I have no financial incentive to do so). Just trying to save people money.
iTunes offers bit perfect playback. There is nothing this app can do to make your music sound better.
Like
Version 1.0
3 answer(s)
Robotank
15 February 2012
True, but have you bothered to find out what iTunes settings need to be disabled or tweaked to ensure bit-perfect output? For that matter, spend 10 minutes looking into what benefits features like automatic sample rate adjustment, hog mode, and integer mode provide, and which pretty much any audiophile-grade player supports? If you're going to keep trolling all these apps, at least get informed or, if you have access to some secret knowledge the rest of us are lacking, back up your ridiculous claims with some evidence or explanation. Your first claim requires qualification, and your second claim is simply false. Go away and stop clogging up these pages with your nonsense.
Like (3)
-M-S-
26 May 2012
What is iTunes' own "Sound Enhancer" feature for, then? (Preferences -> Playback)
Like
Molamola
27 May 2012
the iTunes "Sound Enhancer" (and every other audio processor / filter claiming to "improve" sound by fiddling around with it) is probably the exact opposite of what BitPerfect is claiming to do.
Being an audiophile grade app is all the more reason to offer a demo. Audiophiles are notoriously picky about their gear, and if I'm looking for something that sounds better than iTunes I want to try it before I buy it.
Most helpful
Read 12 BitPerfect User Reviews
Rate this app:
Didn't use to have so many problems.
But now it continually has conflicts with iTunes and the system volume. And tracks unexpecdly stop and another starts playing.
IMO it pretty-much sucks now, and I'm uninstalling it because I'm sick of the aggravation.
I use a different bit perfect player for several reasons, but I have tried Bit Perfect, and it does work. Indeed, from what I've read, the developer created this because of the exceptional cost of so many competitors. (Compare $10 to Pure Music's $129 price tag.)
I'm pushing 60 and also have hearing degradation. I am not trying to disparage you, but it may be important to see an audiologist. I spent years with way-too-loud music that damaged my ability to hear higher frequencies, and hearing aids have made an exceptional difference in my quality of life.
And since music is so much a part of the quality of my life, I appreciate bit perfect players of any kind. I've had to learn to listen to music in an entirely different way. I now have to keep the volume levels low, so being able to squeeze exceptional sound out of my system is critical to me. Bit perfect quality is a major part of that.
I know that people have done all kinds of analyses, comparing file types, bit perfect vs. non-bit-perfect, etc. using wave form readouts and the like. Ultimately, the subjective experience is the only deciding factor. I'm a very picky listener, and for me, bit perfect quality simply sounds better.
The primary factor to be considered in whether one wants to go with bit perfect and high-end audio systems is summarized nicely in a quote I found (but can't attribute because I don't recall the source):
A music lover listens to music with his sound system.
An audiophile listens to his sound system with music.
Bit Perfect and the like depend on which camp you're in. Your review makes total sense for the first camp. I'm in the second and have to evaluate it as such.
On playback we have a whole other set of compromises, and the tracks near the center of the record sound worse than the outside tracks! It's akin to listening to two tin cans and string! It's 100 year old technology.
On the other hand, a high bitrate (256 or higher) MP3 or AAC file sounds just like the CD, which sounds just like the recordings did in the studio.
In most cases you wont hear a difference between lossless and lossy formats, unless the compressed file was rendered with poor software, or the compression rate is too low.
Regarding analog vs. digital; digital is an exact copy. Analog isn't. Analog is lossy by nature. Even tape will introduce noise, flutter, and distortion. And today even cheap consumer grade AD/DA converters do an exact copy. Check out Chuck Zwicky's test where he ran a piano recording through a cheap AD/DA converter 100 times! You can't hear a difference, or see it on the wave form when compared with the original.
As far as this software, I haven't tried it. But iTunes has perfect audio quality, as long as the audio files are good.