Kiwi:
A reviewer on the forum that I posted my concurrence mentioned in my original post, made the following comments about MC vs Pure Music:
Early Sonic Impressions:
I must say that the sound of the program was not bad given that it is a first release Alpha. Overall, there was no hardness in the sound with reasonable detail and resolution. Compared to my favorite OSX programs, Pure Music and Audirvana Plus, the soundstage of Media Center is smaller, particularly in width. The bass is not as well controlled or dynamic sounding as in the other programs. Pure Music and Audirvana Plus are more open sounding with better detail retrieval. Media Center was able to successfully play gapless titles.
When it comes especially to Mac based players such as the following:
Pure Music
Amarra
Audirvana
Decibel
Fidelia
BitPerfect
your question posed to me regarding whether I'm
looking for something more than "bit perfect"? i.e. something that is actually changing the signal in a way that you "want"
is one that is discussed on the PC audio forums that I frequent about the aforementioned players. That is, if the output is bit perfect, and one player sounds different than another, then the signal is being altered. I have read various conclusions -- both pro and con -- to that discussion and don't believe that the signal is being altered by players such as Pure Music and Audirvana, but the key words in this sentence are "don't believe". I haven't the technical expertise to discuss, or make conclusions one way or the other. But I do want Mac MC to provide a soundstage and dynamics that are similar to what I'm experiencing with other players.
It must be said that we audiophiles are a finicky bunch when it comes to sound reproduction. We do spend significant sums on equipment to reproduce such attributes as soundstage, transparency, imaging etc. And one needs the equipment and acousticly enhanced space to accurately portray these attributes. My home theater room has good sound -- new Marantz pre-pro, 7 Energy loudspeakers, Aragon amp, Paradigm subs etc. However, in my HT room, I probably couldn't tell the difference between Pure Music and Mac MC, nor (more importantly) would I care. On the other hand, my 2-channel audio room with a Wavelength DAC, CAT amps, and Soundlab speakers is the area I want MC to equal or exceed the above mentioned OS based players. Unlike the reviewer that I quoted, I found MC's detail retrieval to be essentially on par with Pure Music. But, that may because I trialed a MC version later than the one reviewed. However, I did find soundstage and bass dynamic differences between Pure Music and MC, with Pure Music being preferable. Why one player is different than the other, I can't say. But I can say that so far, Pure Music wins. When that isn't the case, I will happily switch to MC.
My goal here is not to be negative, or a naysayer, but to suggest that folks with an audiophile bent, should be involved in MC's design and trials, with an eye
(or should I say ear) towards the other players mentioned, in order to make MC sonically equal to them. If players like Pure Music and Amarra are concluded to be changing the signal in a way that enhances their playback, to fit someone’s preference, then, no, I wouldn't want MC to do the same. I would however, be grateful to know that is what the other players are doing -- i.e., as you said it: "changing the signal".
