Amarra

[Voltron]

You all don't know me and I have not been a member here long, but I will be hearing Amarra in action tomorrow and will likely have a Model 4 system in place at my house very soon. I will be comparing the Amarra output to iTunes output, and will also be comparing the Model 4 analog output to my EMM Labs DCC2 SE's analog output by feeding it the digital signal from the Model 4. I am excited to hear what Amarra can offer and will post my thoughts on it here as well. Maybe some user reviews will fill a void that right now is brimming with speculation and complaints about cost.

 

[peritone]

You have had the software Amarra for evaluation, how does it stack up against the other Players.And how does it sound being played through the Berkley dac and through Sonics own hardware.

 

Anticipating your reply........Barry :-)

 

[Abstraction]

SoundBlades sounds much better on my system. If Itunes is a 6; SoundBlades is an 8 or 9. And one can expect to pay serious money for that kind of improvement.

 

What most interests me is that Peak LE which retails for $100 is also an 8 or 9. When I was using a PC--I found that several audio mastering programs I tried sound significantly better than the standard jukeboxes that were available to me.

 

I do not think that Apple is into sabotage, but there business is selling MP3s. That's the reason there software is free. They aren't really trying to produce high-end sound.

 

Amarra has an interesting concept. Integrating the parts makes sense, but it is a highest-end move.

 

There is something to be said for finding really good $10 bottles of wine, even when you can afford more.

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Beemb - Ask and you shall receive!

 

Amarra PDF with graphs

 

[Purite Audio]

It looks good is it good?

 

[BEEMB]

 

Chris,

 

I'm looking forward to getting home and having a read and a good look at those graphs.

 

I really didn't expect to see any form of response at all so, needless to say, I'm, err, very impressed.

 

 

Voltron,

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was writing it off. If I write the odd cheeky post now and then and it results in some hard stats and facts then we're all happy. Let us know what you think of it when you hear it in action.

 

 

Matt.

 

[MahlerFreak]

Whether intentionally or not, both the Podcast and the Amarra PDF tend to obfuscate some fundamental points. "Math", in the context it is being used by the Amarra folks, refers to the math in computations applied to the digital audio data - in other words, digital signal processing. This is only relevant in cases where the playback software is not expected to output a bit-for-bit copy of the uncompressed source data - for instance, when you're using software-based volume control, equalization, or digital crossovers. If you're using your computer strictly as a bit-perfect transport, the math doesn't matter, because there is no floating point math. The graphs in the PDF are clearly comparing Amarra to iTunes in non-bit-perfect circumstances.

 

Some people, XXHighEnd and the designers of the AlphaDAC included, believe that properly implemented digital volume control can be superior to analog volume control. In that case, the math, and the algorithms, matter quite a bit.

 

Other folks still, XXHighEnd included, believe that the characteristics of playback software can impact the digital jitter spectrum. This could certainly be the case when using all-in-one systems (internal sound card). It is far more difficult to credit if you're using a properly designed external interface communicating via an asynchronous protocol (like Firewire), since the master clock there has very little possible relationship to the software environment.

 

There is another way in digital signal processing can be used to potentially improve sound: custom digital upsampling/filtering algorithms, especially when applied to 16/44.1. There is a rapidly emerging consensus that so-called "apodising" or mininum-phase digital reconstruction filters are sonically superior to the "linear phase" filters used in almost all digital playback devices until recently. However, here is no consensus on what the optimum parameters for these filters are, and indeed it may depend somewhat on the recording and associated equipment. This is where an upsampling/filtering implementation in software can, by effectively bypassing the reconstruction filter in your DAC, potentially offer benefits even in the case where you're doing no other DSP.

 

Proprietary upsampling/filtering algorithms, BTW, are the primary claim to fame of the forthcoming Blue Smoke Black Box. Do you know, Chris, if such algorithms are part of the Amarra suite, either in SW, or the model 3 or 4?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

Not that Chris has any plans for reviewing any of the Peak products but this is interesting. If ranking iTunes a 6, soundBlade an 8 or 9 and Peak LE also an 8 or 9 is sustained by other users' software evaluations, then you may be one of the first to confirm what others have been thinking. Amarra is overpriced. Especially since Peak LE can play FLAC in addition to AIFF and WAV, and Peak Pro is capable of up to 32-bit/10MHz, including 24-bit/96kHz & 192kHz.

 

Now I realize that soundBlade isn’t Amarra, but I suspect they sound similar if not identical. In any case soundBlade has been the only software Sonic Studio has offered as a download demo to date. I commend BIAS for offering free trial downloads Peak LE from their website.

 

And I don’t think I’m bashing Amarra, I’m bashing Sonic Studio for the software pricing. I think I’d love to have it, though I haven’t listened to it, I just think the pricing strategy is off. But in defense of any criticism or bashing, it comes with the territory when a vendor hypes a product way before it is released. The expectations of the vaporware are not realized by the reality of the product. In this case I believe that Amarra is a good product and a poor value. I can think of worst values, like the stock market returns for the past year. Anyone care to discuss the real estate hype?

 

 

[John]

Thanks, abstraction and mr c. I had no idea that soundblade was available as a demo. It's a piece of cr*p to get set up and, of course, it is not practical for use as a music player but I am grinning like an idiot listening to the sound quality. I baulk at the price but I do plan to wait and see what Amarra is like as a commercial product before jumping off the Apple platform. Planning to take the morning off to listen to some music - John.

 

[Lars]

The problem for me with Amarra is that I can't use it with my Wavelength DAC which I like very much. I believe that there will be other companies making "better than iTunes" software at a lower price for a universal application with OSX.

 

 

 

[John]

All bits are equal.... but some bits are more equal than others?

 

Ok; one more album - than I'll go to bed. This Soundblade thingy sounds so much better than itunes, I am wondering what's going on? I already knew that the s/w player can make a difference (itunes 7 vs 8 for example) but this really is a shock. I should add that both my ears and system are pretty lo-fi; I can't even tell the difference between speaker cables, but this I can hear.

 

The podcast shed no light on the matter. Answers as to why the software could sound better were nonsensical. Mahlerfreak summarizes the logical problems above. So, either sonic doesn't know why or the ceo is treading very carefully around the issue in the interests of protecting IP. I suspect the latter because these guys seem to know their stuff.

 

My question is; if itunes is bit-perfect then what is soundblade? Is it enhanced; the audio equivalent of MSG? It's all way beyond my grasp but can anyone hazard an explanation?

 

- John.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi John - I'v tested soundBlade and Amarra for bit perfection, to the best of my ability, and it is perfect every time.

 

[audiozorro]

I dislike the term bit perfect because some people equate it with perfect sound. The best software players are constantly tweaking their bit perfect software to sound better than previous versions. Read some of the threads for foobar, cPlay and XXHighEnd and you'll see what I mean.

 

And just because the data is perfect doesn't mean that the timing is perfect or that data that is not bit perfect cannot sound better. Upsampling for instance may sound better than unaltered data playback, though it isn't bit perfect. Digital volume controls may slightly alter the data so it is no longer bit perfect, but it may result in superior sound than using a typical volume control. And what the hell is digital room correction where digital filters designed to lessen the unfavorable effects of a room's acoustics are applied to the input of a sound reproduction system.

 

Or suppose you have a 24/192 DAC whose design has a better implementation for 24/96 and a poor 24/192 implementation. Downsampling a 24/192 audio file to 24/96 may sound much better even though it is no longer bit perfect.

 

 

 

 

[MahlerFreak]

John,

 

The only possible audible difference between two bit-perfect software implementations would have to be related to timing errors, aka jitter. Jitter is causally a pretty complex phenomenon, especially in a single-box computer source, and it's possible to imagine interactions in which software could impact jitter.

 

One other thing that is surprising about the test results in that Amarra PDF - they seem to say that they used iTunes in a manner that should be bit-perfect on Mac (volume maximized, sample rate adjusted), but the iTunes results are clearly not of a bit-perfect stream. Just to make the most obvious point, a 2.5 db reduction in level from iTunes represents a pretty gross modification of the bitstream. And one of the graphs refers to a probable jitter distribution from an (obviously very badly implemented) asynchronous sample rate conversion? Perhaps getting bit-perfect output from iTunes on Mac sometimes requires settings or interactions that aren't always obvious? Certainly, you would find a bit-perfect, 2.5 db louder bitstream to sound much "better" than a 2.5 db quieter stream with lots of SRC-induced distortion sidebands.

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

I'v tested soundBlade and Amarra for bit perfection, to the best of my ability, and it is perfect every time.

 

I am not familiar with the Mac world (maybe I will hehe), but throughout time, on this forum, I never saw any means come by on HOW to test for bit perfectness (I can easily have missed this). Nor is it questioned when someone says it is (but I think Chris is the only one saying/stating things like this).

 

I have a question to Windows users : How many of you know that something like a DTS or HDCD test does *not* work for Vista ?

I guess near nobody. But it really does not, because Vista just switches to "bit perfect mode" when such a stream is detected.

 

Now what about Macs ? how do you do it ? how do you know you do it right ?

 

I can tell you, there is one and one way only which guarantees it for 100% : record back and compare.

I don't think I ever saw people doing it, because it may be too tedious and may require too much knowlegde already. But it really is the only way ...

 

Another question : is iTunes capable of playing DTS or HDCD ? I mean, did someone manage to do it ?

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

[BEEMB]

 

I only glanced at the graphs and completey agree with both of your post above. But isn't iTunes on the Mac bit perfect anyway ? If you were talking PC then I agree, it doesn't allow such output unless you have certain conditions in place. But on the Mac, are we not comparing bit perfect with bit perfect...

 

Matt.

 

[PeterSt]

... before I create even more vagueness than I already do usually ... this is exactly what my last question / post is about (avoiding laying the answers ready in one's mouth). So what it boiles down to is :

 

a. Those graphs compare Windows with Apple and thus contain a high amount of (wrong !) suggestion

or

b. iTunes cannot be bit perfect at any time, which is the only reason the graphs are justifiied, but which also is a foremost reason SoundBlade sounds better than iTunes.

 

But which of these two is it ? Sorry I don't know anything much about the Mac myself.

 

CIA-P.

 

[MahlerFreak]

Peter, I agree, those are exactly the two possibilities. I'd not considered that they might be comparing iTunes on Windows, but that would be one logical explanation for what appears in those graphs. Since iTunes on Windows is just about the only player not to support ASIO or WASAPI, comparing anything to iTunes on that platform is just shooting fish in a barrel.

 

In any case, the PDF as it stands is at best confusing, and at worst actively misleading. Sonic should quickly revise it, or withdraw it, because it's doing nothing to help their credibility in its current form.

 

[PeterSt]

Well, because I know how stupid I find it myself from others to shout things without actually knowing or testing it, I should at least again emphasize that I don't know. The point is though, it shouldn't be too obvious. In this case the "trick" would be that Amarra doesn't run on Windows, while a graph is shown from Windows.

 

But again, this only counts when iTunes on the Mac is just bit perfect, which is another thing to be cautious about, because the guys making those graphs possibly ran into in a not bit perfect mode of iTunes on the (a ?) Mac.

Or ... iTunes just is not bit perfect while everybody thinks it is (which sure would come out which such an FFT graph).

 

In the end I need more and more words to explain my earlier post ... just because I try to be cautious at accusing. I still am.

 

Peter

 

[MahlerFreak]

Peter, I agree completely - either the graphs came from iTunes on Windows, or iTunes on Mac is not bit-perfect, or they missed some subtlety in setting up iTunes on the Mac, and I have no way to know which it is. And I was careful to restrict my criticism to the PDF itself, which obviously does lend itself to misinterpretation. And the explanation for that might be as simple as, some overly enthusiastic Sonic employee released the PDF before it was carefully vetted.

 

But my point remains: when you're making extraordinary claims for an extraordinarily expensive piece of software, you have to expect a high level of scrutiny, and that document in its current form doesn't stand up to such scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

[Purite Audio]

I am pretty sure the tests were conducted using itunes on a Mac.

 

[HarryHWombat]

Whether intentionally or not, both the Podcast and the Amarra PDF tend to obfuscate some fundamental points. "Math", in the context it is being used by the Amarra folks, refers to the math in computations applied to the digital audio data - in other words, digital signal processing. This is only relevant in cases where the playback software is not expected to output a bit-for-bit copy of the uncompressed source data - for instance, when you're using software-based volume control, equalization, or digital crossovers. If you're using your computer strictly as a bit-perfect transport, the math doesn't matter, because there is no floating point math. The graphs in the PDF are clearly comparing Amarra to iTunes in non-bit-perfect circumstances.

- MahlerFreak

 

Sorry for the long quote but it was some space back in the thread. Having listened to the podcast this is the exact same point as I was about to make. Fortunately, I read the thread first

 

So the question becomes: if I do not utilise digital equalisation, volume or other signal processing what is it about Amarra that should make me a potential customer? It "sounds better" is not enough in the absence of a simple explanation of how it differentiates itself from iTunes in the transport of a PCM stream from AIFF/WAV to an external DAC. Without this explanation or some sort of indication of an explanation it is just magic and I don't believe in magic. (Sorry Tinkerbell)

 

[blueixus]

Whilst trying to get my head round the graphs that the Amarra guys have released I downloaded the trial version Soundblade (the basis of Amarra) and as suggest by a previous poster compared it's playback to itunes on a Mac.

 

Night and Day, Soundblade sounds in a different league from itunes; for the first time on par and maybe ahead of my CD player, a similar result to the previous poster who suggested trying soundblade.

 

The more I think about itunes, it is very unlikely itunes was ever designed for the audiophile world. More like it was designed to 1) playback low res downloaded music - which it does surprisingly well 2) Look great 3) Be easy to use 4) Integrate into (and thus sell) a whole load of other Apple products.

 

Now my simple comparison may not answer questions about bit perfection but it, to my ears, suggests Amarra with the soundblade engine might be very good indeed.

 

It seems stupid they can have 'launched it' in such a dumb way. Difficult/impossible to trial, unclear info and a mighty price. All this causes the sort of debate, quite rightly, going on in this forum.

 

I almost wish I had not tried Soundblade because now I am being drawn to Amarra simply beacause it "sounds (much) better" - it is the same reason I have always changed/upgraded my kit for the last 25 years but I think they (Sonic Studio) should communicate much much better and at least make the evaluation process of their product a pleasure, not a pain. If they return my emails, just a few humble questions, I may even buy it!

 

 

 

 

[weiss2496]

Let me jump in on the discussion, as we will offer Amarra for our products as well.

 

The graphs in the PDF I did, as mentioned in the file. iTunes was running on the same MAC as Amarra. I used two different MAC computers with iTunes version 8.1.1 to see whether there was any difference. None. I tried to find what was wrong with the iTunes playback, because the measurement looks so awful, but I could not find anything. Maybe I do not know MACs enough, so if anybody can point me to potential pitfalls let me know. The sampling rate of the file played and the AudioMidi setting were the same, no "sound enhancement" or normalizing switched on, full wordlength, volume set to the maximum. When I played back a file at a different sampling rate (i.e. SRC going on) the picture did not change substantially. It seems that even if the file and AudioMidi are at the same sampling rate, itunes is performing a (very bad) sampling rate conversion. The 2.5db level drop makes sense as SRCs tend to overload when hit with high levels and highly compressed (loudness wise) music.

In that view Amarra has a lot for it, despite its price. It has bit transparent playback, decent volume control and automatic sampling rate switching.

I will do some more testing with iTunes.

 

Daniel

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Daniel - Just make sure you close and reopen iTunes whenever you change the sample rate on a Mac :~)