Amarra

[audiozorro]

"I almost wish I had not tried soundBlade because now I am being drawn to Amarra simply because it sounds (much) better"

 

Ha, why do you think some folks have been encouraging others to just listen to other software players like cPlay or XXHighEnd – because they sound soo much better than anything else out there. This is an adventure in a relatively new frontier where exploration is highly recommended.

 

Since you’re using a Mac, I suggest you download and try the Peak LE 6 demo and compare it to soundBlade. I plan to later, but I’d be curious to get your impressions.

 

 

[BEEMB]

 

SOOO,

 

if iTunes on the Mac is doing something, then it's not, as we all thought, bit perfect??

Could this back up some posts from one or two other forumers claiming that windows based computers, tested to output bit perfect audio, sound better than Macs?

 

Ooooo .......

 

[Purite Audio]

Chris C, you have had the chance to compare Amarra to standard itunes , would you like to step in with an opinion at this point? Regards Keith.

 

[HarryHWombat]

The sampling rate of the file played and the AudioMidi setting were the same

- Daniel

 

Daniel - have you tried keeping the audio midi settings at 24/44.1 and not changing to 16/44.1? Elsewhere there is a claim that 24/44.1 is the setting to achieve "bit-perfect" output on OS X. May be worth a go if you haven't tried. Cannot understand why it should be but others have claimed it to be so.

 

[bite-the-byte]

Winning my lazy attitude I quickly downloaded Peak LE demo to test against iTunes (macMini). Well to my surprise Peak sound really bad, compress and muddy compared to iTunes. Sometimes there's also a little brack in playing.

Probably there's something to play around with the sw, but in any case it looks too complex apps just for play.

In my setup I have the X32, which implement it's own FW driver (with it I change bitrate without close and reopen iTunes, for instance). Again, this is not scientific test, just a quick one, but it's interesting how my outcomes differ from some others...

I also was surprised on watching the Amarra pdf... for my ears judgement, believe me, my setup based on iTunes and the rest of the chain is top performing, better than Esoteric UX-1 I have. Is the dig out driver, maybe, in my case the key element for the good performance?

 

Paolo

 

[Abstraction]

Its not just SoundBlades. Most of the Pro Audio Mastering software I have tried--both Mac and PC--sound a lot better than Itunes, j Rivers, foobar--the jukebox software. Samplitude and Soundlab sound great. And, when there is a stripped-down version, it sounds the same as far as I can tell as the expensive version. Soundlab and Soundlab Essentials, Peak and Peak LE, sound the same to me. I assume they use the same sound engine; the difference in price is that the full versions have a lot of features that are necessary to mastering high-quality files for CDs and commercial use.

 

Soundblades is more expensive than most of the other pro packages, but the professionals buy it for ease of use, and so forth. The Soundblades interface is very spare compared to most of the others. I suppose its power is hidden in the menus somewhere.

 

It is possible to download demos of 6 or 8 mastering programs--all of which sound significantly better than any of the jukebox programs. They are probably better and worse, but but if Steinberg or Bias, or whoever, would take their sound engine and give it a nice, clean jukebox frontend, I'd buy it in a minute.

 

The point seems to be that there are engineers out there who know how to write playback engines. There is nothing magic about it.

 

db

 

[serengetiplains]

A few iTunes versions ago, I compared iTunes on both a Mac and PC to Foobar on a PC. Within five seconds' listening, I judged Foobar better than both the Mac and PC versions of iTunes. The latter were a little flat and instruments less distinct, almost like a blanket were thrown over my speakers.

 

Coming away from this comparison, viewing the large pile of CDs I would have to import into user-unfriendly Foobar, I decided against the grain of my preference for better sound to use iTunes. I felt arm-wrestled to do so.

 

God knows what iTunes was doing to the music. But it was to my ear umistakeably doing something.

 

[serengetiplains]

I just compared Peak Pro (trial) to iTunes on my Mac. No comparison: Peak is two quite noticeable amplifier-improvement-jumps better.

 

As to Amarra's silence, they probably signed a contract with Apple to allow iTunes meshing so can't (or for other reasons don't want to) badmouth Apple.

 

[Brucemck2]

Serengetiplains ....

 

Is that without using any volume controls, etc., on the Mac?

 

iTunes could sound better/worse because of "basic transport functionality" (does it get a bit perfect or close to that output with relatively low jitter to the input of the DAC) and/or "math functionality" (does it do a good job with volume contol, with volume levelling, with parametric eq, etc.)

 

 

 

[serengetiplains]

Hi Bruce, yes, non-fiddled bits ..... no volume control, no EQ, WAV files only, burned with correction.

 

My partner, who is not a crazy audiophile like moi, said, Peak sounds clearer. She'd know. She holds the whip in this bedroom, err, family.

 

[MahlerFreak]

Thanks for coming on and telling us what's up, Daniel. If iTunes is giving you this much trouble getting bit-perfect, I wonder how many other folks are having the same trouble without being aware of it ...

 

One thing that shouldn't be underestimated is the volume control. A well-implemented digital volume control can allow direct connection of DAC to amps, removing the need for a preamp, at least in the case where the DAC has a robust output stage. Whether the Amarra digital volume control is better than that in, say, XXHighEnd, I'll leave others to listen and judge for themselves.

 

 

 

 

[Voltron]

I met Jonathan at Sonic's office and got a good introduction to the features of the Amarra software and hardware. I cannot give you any more technical data or answer the various bit-perfect questions or compare to other software. I can say that I am buying a Mac Mini and will have Amarra and a Model 4 of my own or on loan as of Friday.

 

The integration with iTunes is easy and yet impressive. The ease of handling tracks with a variety of sampling rates on the fly and without hiccup is great. The mixing, EQ and other features with and without the Model 4 are going to be fantastic for my needle-drop needs. The additional features are too numerous to list and I don't think I know a tenth of them. Sonic also seems to have lots of plans for unlocking features already in Amarra and adding more. This system is going to be very robust from what I can tell.

 

And the sound is great although I hardly had time or ability to do any real comparison on gear and speakers I am completely unfamiliar with. It will be very easy to compare iTunes to Amarra and Model 4 to my DAC given the ins/outs and ability to switch from Amarra to iTunes by clicking a dialog box. I intend to do some of the comparing next week.

 

As for the questions of why no demo program, why the launch is not more polished, and why every single feature is not yet known, I can only repeat some of what Jonathan told me. He said that Sonic is taking it slow and trying to get everything figured out before they do a real, full-fledged launch. They are a pro dealer, after all, so this retail audiophile stuff is new to them as far as I can tell. The PDF that he put out yesterday seems to have been done in part because Chris C was asking for more data, and I think both Sonic and Daniel Weiss are trying to be clear about what they are doing and how they are doing it. I cannot imagine that people really expect Sonic to divulge all of their secrets of what they are doing and how they are doing it, but my own impression is that they are trying to get information out while still nailing down exactly what features and templates and such will be implemented in the first release.

 

Jonathan has a number of early adopters who are getting the software to use with Weiss and Alpha DACs and some that are also getting the hardware unit. I cannot speak for the company but my guess is that they are getting some things worked out on the hardware and software ends during a limited launch. Good idea in my opinion.

 

I will certainly be looking and listening for the sound differences and sound improvements and ease of use and cool features as I get going with Amarra and will plan to post up my thoughts as I am able.

 

[serengetiplains]

I suspect Amarra sounds better than Peak, which IMO sounds very fine, and which I consider a worthwhile upgrade from iTunes. What do I mean by worthwhile? In comparable terms on the hardware side, you would have to spend, I estimate, at least a few thousand dollars, probably rather more, to obtain the kind of upgrade Peak, to my ear, offers. If Amarra offers more, well ....

 

[Abstraction]

serengetiplains--

I am a not sure that any hardware upgrade will equal the kind of improvement the better sound engines make. I don't know what the variable is, but some kinds of processing makes better sound.

 

Steinberg had a jukebox program probably nearly ten years ago. Obviously there was no market at that time. I am sure that an integrated system, like Amarra, makes it possible to wring the best out of a digital file, but there are several sound engines, selling in comparatively inexpensive mastering programs, which could be the heart of a jukebox, integrated with Itunes or with its own Interface, that would be a serious improvement from anything currently available for either Mac or PC.

 

[serengetiplains]

Ab, I agree, once lost to digit-fiddling, that info is gone.

 

[audiozorro]

Voltron, thanks for the update. Jonathan sounds like a good guy and I’ll praise anyone who brings us closer to better music.

 

Abstraction: “I am a not sure that any hardware upgrade will equal the kind of improvement the better sound engines make.” Seems like I heard the same thing from several users of cMP/cPlay.

 

Isn’t this fun as we count down to something big.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Voltron - Thanks for sharing your experience with all the CA readers. I agree with you about the potential of the Sonic platform. There really is a lot to it that needs to be publicized a bit more. I can't wait to hear your opinion about Amarra and the Model 4.

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

With all this talk about the 'math', and the effort apparently invested by Sonic Studio over many years to create their software, I thought I would remind the group that some of the software used by Sonic Studio is licensed from other software developers.

 

As an example, Sonic Studio licenses iZotope's 64-bit SRC software (SRC does what you think it would do - sample rate conversion). Sonic Studio also licenses Izotope's superb dithering software called MBit+, and their restoration suite called Vive, which provide comprehensive DSP. All of these are reportedly included in Soundblade, the basis of Amarra.

 

And, FWIW, iZotope's 64-bit SRC and Mbit+ are also available in Wave Editor, which costs a relatively nominal amount compared to Soundblade. I think I paid $79 for it. Anyone considering Peak or other inexpensive 'pro' solutions, should add Wave Editor to their shortlist.

 

enjoy,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

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.

 

Ok Daniel, so the graphs produced are about apples and oranges. Thank you for the honest explanation.

At knowing the graphs are not representative for the job, any reason to make them public anyway ? Chris, did you know about this ?

 

By now it is clear to me that iTunes (8.x) on the Mac just is bit perfect, unless some settings are going on.

Is there any reason why nobody confirmed this ? Ah, nobody knows perhaps.

 

But Chris, you do and you know how to deal with all. In above quote Daniel is seeking for some help. I suppose you are helping him off line right now ?

 

Daniel, when can we expect some new comparing graphs ?

I know, you were only kind to help Chris. But since wrong pictures are up with commercial impact and the wrong message ...

 

Thanks,

Peter

 

 

[weiss2496]

I don't say that the iTunes graphs I did are wrong, I only find it hard to believe that it is the way I measure it. I will investigate further and report here.

 

It is not apple and oranges. I set-up and use iTunes as anybody else would do. Same with Amarra. And am getting those results.

Many say that iTunes was bit transparent - but is there anybody who can prove that?? If yes please step up and tell us about it.

 

By now it is clear to me that iTunes (8.x) on the Mac just is bit perfect, unless some settings are going on.

How do you know?

 

Daniel

 

 

[PeterSt]

Hi Daniel,

 

First off, you post is appreciated. I'm sure by everyone here. Thanks.

 

How do I know ? That's tricky ... I searched this forum and found quite a few post were people "stated" this, amongst them Chris a few times including how to do it (for him that would be the light on his Alpha DAC and trying a HDCD).

 

My way of operating may be hard to follow, but whatever I suggest/state (in my posts in this thread) it isn't confirmed either way. This goes along with the posts I found that should confirm iTunes on the MAC to be bit perfect, and in the end I guess we all can't make anything of it. So what is happening ? is everybody (but you Daniel) copying eachothers words ?

 

I know, it is me who said that a test like with HDCD says nothing ... on Vista. This only indicates to be careful with the Mac, but chances that the test is not legit there are not so big I guess (like it would be legit on XP).

 

In the end it looks like not many people are interested in iTunes being bit perfect or not on the Mac. Try Google. Nothing but posts from CA ...

 

I don't want to rant, and sure don't want to offend, but possibly Chris doesn't perform the test reliably. I recall one time at least that Chris reported something to be bit perfect (it could have been SongBird) while in a next post it was proved that it always upsamples, or whatever it was.

I am not here to doubt other's words, but sometimes it is about things which interest me and the real merits are important. For example, if iTunes on the Mac does not allow for bit perfectness, Amarra has a good reason to exist, as long as iTunes stays as it is. It would be just what you showed Daniel and it would be a legit sales argument for iTunes users on the Mac.

 

At this time I wish a had a Mac around.

 

Peter

 

PS: Chris, I know you are always careful and add "to the best of my knowledge". But can you please be more explicit now ? why leave us speculating here ?

 

[serengetiplains]

I don't see how iTunes can be bit perfect on its output. The difference between Peak Pro and iTunes on my Mac setup is not small. And I can't imagine I am hearing but a product of upsampling performed by Peak. My amp is a Lyngdorf Millenium, which itself probably upsamples 44.1, possibly 96, but in any event never converts data to analogue, so avoids filter effects in that conversion process etc.

 

Tom

 

[John]

"I don't see how iTunes can be bit perfect on its output. The difference between Peak Pro and iTunes on my Mac setup is not small."

 

I tend to agree Tom. The sonic differences between itunes and soundblade are also not subtle and cannot possibly be attributed to jitter. I'm open to either being proven as the 'proper' one but they do sound very different. One or the other package is not bit perfect (or may be neither is) but they ain't spitting out the same bits for sure.

 

Incidentally; my wife prefers the sound of itunes because she is unusually sensitive to high pitches and soundblade has a significant treble lift vs itunes 7 in my system.

 

- John.

 

[bite-the-byte]

I'm repeating myself here, but it is as I feel to be the only one to have experienced it, IMHO in my setup iTunes delivers far superior clean sound than Peak LE. I just tried quickly at 44.1 (most of my database is ripped). No minimal differences, I was astonished on how compressed was the music through Peak LE compared to iTunes

 

I'd just like to get somehow the prove iTunes on osx can deliver "bit perfect" stream, this would be my real reference to judge any other element in my audio chain. I wish to have a firm point where the sw player does nothing to improve or alter the bit stream... I hope someone with right skill and right test tools would make the mission... hopefully someone independent, not a vendor, for best impartiality.

 

Tonight I'll download the sonic studio mastering tool demo sw and hearing test it too.

 

Paolo

 

[blueixus]

I tend to agree with Paolo about trying to understand the way different players present the bits to the DAC.

 

It would be useful to know, I have tried quite a few pro software systems and It has been my experience they usually produce a "better" sound. I currently use Sound Forge to record my vinyl through a Lynx L22, it usually sounds better through this than when the file is played back through the SW player.

 

Whether 'bit perfect' is the holy grail we will have to see. I suspect this is going to be a lot more complicated as the comments from the Amarra guys eluded to in Chris's second podcast.

 

My ears tell me, in my system, SoundBlade playback is a lot more dynamic, detailed and involving than itunes manages (low res files being the only exception).

 

In the same way there is system synergy between traditional hifi hardware we may find there is system synergy between DACs and SW players!

 

Out of curiosity I will try Peak LE but, for now, SoundBlade has reset the bar for playback on Mac.