my initial experience with Pure Vinyl

[SteveS1]

You're welcome Clay.

 

If I was making such a rickets of getting a bit of software to work that others were having no problem with, I might first question whether I was getting something wrong - rather than pen an essay on a forum about how it's not very good/intuitive etc.

 

Steve

 

[cfmsp]

 

Yep, I just realized this.

 

I can't run it on my G5 with Tiger.

 

Time to load Leopard onto a different partition on G5's OCZ Vertez I guess.

 

I doubt I'll be able to do that before the special price deadline, so I'll be counting on your 'review' as to whether I should buy it or not.

 

You're giving it a thumbs up, right?

 

clay

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

OK Guys - Let's keep this enjoyable. There is no need to provide anything other than one's own experience and offer help to other readers. Questioning someone's judgement about their methodology and usage habits is not fun to read and detracts from this wonderful hobby of ours. We're all adults here and can make our own decisions about each other's comments. I'm interested in everybody's experience with PV. Nobody should feel the need to defend PV by attacking the person who's only writing his experience. Most responses here have been helpful and are contributing to a really good thread for people to read over and over again.

 

Please remember we are in this to have fun and enjoy our music collection more than ever. There are enough people causing each of us headaches on a daily basis :~)

 

[cfmsp]

"... I might first question whether I was getting something wrong - rather than pen an essay on a forum about how it's not very good/intuitive etc."

 

Well said.

 

...although my experiences are apparently still valid (i.e., not totally self inflicted) as it relates to version 2.3

 

'Nuf said.

 

 

clay

 

PS, many thanks to all who offered helpful suggestions!

 

[Lars]

Clay,

 

Yes I give it thumbs up. I guess you read my review on AA. I can see that some folks would prefer Amarra. After all, I think Amarra is a great program. Given that all of our systems are different, it's a wonder we can agree on anything!

 

I tried the fix Rob gave me for gapless playback on my high rez stuff-still doesn't work.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

[myco]

First, let me say that I believe it’s considered acceptable conduct for a manufacturer to post directly to this forum, as I’ve observed, for example, the creator of XXHighEnd has done, and been welcome?

 

I am the lead developer and creator of Pure Vinyl. I have posted to this website just one single time previously, and didn’t wish to do so again after my integrity was questioned, without the person offering any proof of those assertions, and the moderator doing nothing about it. But I did monitor that thread for some time thereafter and noticed entire subsequent posts strangely disappearing from the thread. So I hope that my post doesn’t disappear, as well (best save a copy while you can)? (I suppose in that event we could still post a copy of this on the Channel D website, anyway.) (P.S., my username comes from an interest in mycology, as some may know.)

 

I’ll state up front that I’m extremely busy (including having the responsibility of occassionally fielding some of the technical support questions regarding Pure Vinyl, an activity that gets top priority here, as I hope our users can attest) and will find it difficult to monitor and respond to further replies that may be made to this thread (which just popped up on Google Alerts). For that, I apologize in advance.

 

What has transpired here I find almost unbelievable. A person that, I think is fair to say, who has been a visibly public and consistent promoter of a certain product (as is consistently mentioned in the sig line of his posts, and as I believe anyone who frequents this forum would glean), posts his own review of a competitor’s product? (We surely can split hairs over whether “first impression” is the same as a “review” but it does seem to have a similar format posts that are called reviews in many hi-fi forums.)

 

From my perspective as a former research scientist and project manager at Bellcore (originally part of AT&T Bell Labs), this almost leaves me speechless, and seems insulting to the fine members of this website and forum.

 

For what it’s worth, no one here at Channel D recalls ever hearing from (or can find a record of) *anyone* named Clay or Clayton, in conjunction with Pure Vinyl in any way; so unless that's an assumed name he uses in this forum, he has been invisible regarding requesting technical support. At which time we would immediately have determined he was using an outdated version of the iTunes server software and saved everyone a lot of trouble; on our download page it’s stated that the Pure Vinyl 3 Preview is the one to use for this purpose:

 

http://www.channld.com/pure-vinyl_download.html

 

BTW, it’s foolish to purchase an activation code for the product, even on anyone’s solid say-so, without first trying the demo yourself. Not doing so may just lead to frustration for everyone involved. Also, this (Leopard-only but G4/G5/Intel compatible) Preview release product has been out for several months now, for a string of updates, as well as also being mentioned on this website for quite some time now, so please forgive me for thinking that it’s hard to imagine that someone who is so active here has only just now become aware of its existence.

 

(Important: Channel D does indeed have a point by point feature comparison between Pure Vinyl and a competitor’s product posted on our website. If there were any errors in the comparison I’m sure we would have been contacted and alerted to them by now, and of course they would be corrected immediately. But we haven’t heard anything since posting that comparison on January 10.)

 

At this point I’d like to say that I find Chris Connaker’s providing further encouragement / validation to the poster immediately after the review a bit disconcerting, knowing, first of all, that the reviewer has a potential conflict of interest; and second, that this website hosts advertising by the competitor’s company, so there is incentive to have the competitor succeed. That’s why I find Chris’ encouragement disconcerting:

 

 

“(Clay,) I know your technical skills are high so I have faith you'll at least use the app correctly :~)”

 

 

I would have thought that one possible response in a case like this might have been, given the seeming conflicts of interest involved, to simply remove the thread. Chris’ reply, however, seems to go in the opposite direction.

 

Finally, Chris, perhaps in light of the above, I think that everyone should be aware that last year you had contacted us, requesting a couple of free activation codes for Pure Vinyl so you could demo it at your Computer Audio Symposium in the Bay Area last summer. (I can provide copies of the correspondence to you if you don’t remember, but I won’t repost them without your explicit permission.)

 

In subsequent conversations with you via email (and Tim Marutani in a telephone conversation), I offered, despite having only about one week’s notice, to have someone sent to your Symposium, completely at our own expense, to conduct the demo of the product. This was partly because, as we have learned over many years in this business, the outcome of a demo can depend on who is performing it, and also whether or not they are “friendly” regarding the product. Would Apple have Steve Ballmer demonstrate their products?

 

Anyway, after I made the offer to have a Channel D representative travel to the Symposium to conduct the demo of Pure Vinyl, the interest of Mr. Marutani and Mr. Connaker in having Pure Vinyl at the Computer Audio Symposium evaporated (though excuses were offered, such as not enough time to organize it, etc.; yet, on the other hand, there *was* enough time for a new user to become familiar enough with the product to conduct a viable demo)?

 

I later learned that Mr. Marutani’s line of business, as posted on his company’s website, is, among other things, an Amarra dealer (something he didn’t mention in the conversation).

 

Rob Robinson

 

 

[myco]

Just a follow up comment:

 

For what it’s worth, track playback location to a given location within a track *can* be controlled, but that option has to be manually enabled in the Preferences. It isn’t supported for the very specific case of when playing from a group of gapless tracks, but will be very soon.

 

Pure Vinyl 3 is not supported in Tiger, and it may never be, because the performance was found unsatisfactory, and rather than impose that on a user for the sake of a tick mark on the spec sheet, we have focused on Leopard and above. It will run on a G4, G5 or Intel processor, however.

 

The CPU activity depends on the features enabled in the Preferences and in the main window. Disabling the scrolling song display or other options, if CPU usage is important to you, will reduce the CPU footprint. Earlier versions of the Preview could be further pared down with regards to CPU use, but this has been omitted in the latest 4n4 release as being potentially confusing (because of presenting too many choices) to the user.

 

Rob Robinson

 

 

[jonmarsh]

It seems factual and restrained, and I can understand why the latter might require some effort on your part.

 

I'm a licensed and happy user of Pure Vinyl, though I rarely use it in the way originally developed- as I've finally gotten the digital house somewhat in order and am concentrating my efforts there with high resolution sources. However, the capture and track definition facility is quite useful, as is the playback engine in the V3 preview- I'm looking forward with anticipation to the final release of that product.

 

Keep up the good work!

 

~Jon Hancock

 

[Lars]

Rob,

 

I'm the fellow that posted a review of Pure Vinyl yesterday at AA under the name Mercman. Lars is the polite fellow here at CA; Mercman loves the rough and tumble of AA. He welcomes controversy.

 

I have been a very strong proponent of Amarra as has Clay. I feel that both you and Sonic Studio make excellent products. I was very impressed with the sound of Pure Vinyl; so much so, I purchased it. As per our conversation today, I e-mailed you the names of some high resolution titles that do not work in gapless playback. I have more titles, but this was a start. This was the only significant problem I had with your software.

 

I don't think it has to be Amarra OR Pure Vinyl. I for one want to own both.

 

I appreciate your comments and look forward to enjoying your software.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"I don't think it has to be Amarra OR Pure Vinyl. I for one want to own both."

 

So, Steve, what should I do? Rob says I'd be foolish to pay for an activation code of a product based on someone else's say-so.

 

Can I trust you?

 

If it's as good as you say, it would be another great product in the quiver to recommend to my friends (who I'm afraid to even admit how much I paid for Amarra), not to mention posters here at CA.

 

My biggest concern is frustrating my "inner dj", as Paul called it.

 

thanks again for your review on AA, very timely for me.

 

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/6/68490.html

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

BTW, another CA poster has tested your claim - that a signal only 30db down is audible in iTunes (when muted) when used in what you call Ghost Play mode - and says that it is NOT valid for the current version of iTunes.

 

I'll reach out to Jon Reichbach and see what he has to say. I'll post his response to your claims here on CA.

 

 

regards,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[pj]

Clay,

 

I and others observed that with the current version of iTunes the minimum volume position mutes iTunes output, but this may not have been the case in previous versions. I can't check the previous major versions so I'm not prepared to make a definitive statement as to whether they behave in the same manner.

 

To be honest I hardly see this as questioning Rob's integrity nor as answering questions of integrity as you claim. That said I do think Rob and Channel D need to substantiate those particular claims.

 

cheers

Paul

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"To be honest I hardly see this as questioning Rob's integrity nor as answering questions of integrity as you claim."

 

I edited those comments out, but apparently not before you read them, as they were inappropriate. I mistakenly thought that he was saying that I questioned his integrity, which I now believe was in error. In any event, my words were inflammatory, so I deleted them.

 

 

If we give Rob the benefit of the doubt, we could say that their Ghost Play comments stem purely from the point in time when they made design decisions about which path to take, several years earlier.

 

OTOH, these comments are in the release notes currently being provided with version 3, and they've made two releases (with two chances to update release notes) since iTunes 9 came out on Sept, 2009.

 

I guess it's possible that they don't (yet) know that the claim is not valid (at current time), but given the recent release of the comparison table - Jan 10th, 2010 - and the recent release notes (being updated and published twice since iTunes 9 was available), I have a hard time giving the full benefit of the doubt, especially as they (seem to) go so far as to coin a phrase - iTunes Ghost Play - to refer to this distinction between Amarra and PV.

 

I'll admit that the design difference is quite admirable (in favor of PV), but I'm still gonna refrain from full benefit of the doubt (re the -30db claim) until/unless Rob provides supporting evidence.

 

thanks for your post,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Rob - I'm very surprised by your post. I feel a stern response is necessary as the credibility of a Computer Audiophile reader, myself, and a colleague of mine has been called into question.

This thread is all about one user sharing his experience with your product. Good, bad or ugly that's what happens with wide open communication on the Internet. The original intent of this thread has value because it's a view into one user's experience with Pure Vinyl. The more people that share experiences the easier it is to make decisions for those considering the product. Clay has been a frequent contributor here at Computer Audiophile where the atmosphere is laid back. He is a very bright guy and I have 100% confidence that he will use Pure Vinyl to the best of his abilities in the manor he so chooses. Relaying this experience can help others. Some people may read Clay's post and decide Pure Vinyl is not for them because of Clay's problems. Those people may be very technically challenged or have absolutely no time to read a manual or even a read me document. That's the way life goes. Other people will think Clay is full of it and disregard his comments. We are all adults here who can make our own decisions. As I always say, the more information the better. It allows people to make decisions and is used as data points, that's all. I don't delete posts on CA unless someone has promoted a product or has been extremely offensive. I think the users around here will attest to this. CA is very transparent.

It's unfortunate that your response to someone challenging your credibility was to leave the site and not return until now. It would have been great to read more about you so readers could decide for themselves if you are credible or not. You mention the person questioning your credibility did not offer any proof. Later in that paragraph you mention that posts here strangely disappeared. Well, please offer proof that posts have disappeared. I save all removed posts and have a record back to day one of the posts.

Stating you are extremely busy could be seen as an easy out for you so you don't have to respond to someone challenging you again. We are all very busy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, unlike you have give me, that you truly don't have time to monitor this thread. Fortunately you will receive an email every time this thread is updated so all you have to do is read your email.

Clay has not posted a review of a competitor's product. He does not represent Amarra. I will use the name since you have an extreme aversion to writing the name Amarra here and on your site. It's actually in Clay's and everyone's best interest for him to love Pure Vinyl and get much use out of it. Competition is great for consumers. Plus any product that allows people to enjoy their music collections more is wonderful. Calling Clay's post a review is misleading in my opinion. He stated several times that it was meant to be read as one user sharing his experience. Stating that his First Impression is a review because other people consider it a review on other forums is a method of deduction I'm sure you did not use in your positions at Bellcore. If I test drive a Ford Focus and write on Car forums that I absolutely hated the card because of A, B, and C I don't think Ford Motor Company would consider it a review or even respond in the way you have. Ford would likely try to make a Win-Win situation out of it and see if both parties could be satisfied. It would have been wonderful if that would have happened here. I have a feeling if we all were sitting at dinner the accusations, misrepresentations, irrelevant data would not even come up in the conversation. I'm not sure why writing on a forum is any different for people.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention your former career as a research scientist. It seems quite irrelevant here. That said, I don't think anything in this thread even comes close to any sort of science or research. You mention that your comparison to Amarra must not contain any errors because nobody from Amarra has contacted you yet and it's been six complete days since the comparison was posted. Is that the kind of logic you used at Bellcore? I think you will agree that's a preposterous statement. You are a fan of Google Alerts, as you also stated, so you know if you would have actually called the product Amarra instead of product A that Sonic Studio may have actually seen your comparison. By not mentioning Amarra on your site you have easily avoided Sonic finding out about the comparison. Plus, I don't believe every company feels obligated to respond to every comparison involving its products. Some responses give the appearance of credibility to the person who came up with the comparison where credibility may not be deserved.

It's also unfortunate you find my comments, encouraging a reader to continue posting information about his experience, disconcerting. Referring to Clay as a reviewer in your statement is misrepresentation of the truth in my opinion. He has no conflict of interest. In fact there is no reader on any site I've ever read that abhors readers with conflicts of interest more than Clay. A search of Clay's posts will show frequent disdain for anyone who appears to have a conflict of interest. Your suggestion that there's an incentive for Sonic Studio to succeeded, at the detriment of others (Channel D) and inference that my comments are somehow based upon that incentive are asinine. There is no way I would jeopardize my credibility or the credibility of Computer Audiophile by favoring any advertiser or even a non-advertisor. It just doesn't make sense any way you look at it. I actually would like to see Sonic Studio and Channel D as well as every single company in high end audio succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Protecting an existing advertiser to the detriment of other potential advertisers and myself is such a short term view of the world. If everyone in high end audio succeeds than I could have many more advertisers.

As you know things are often much more complicated that they seem from the outside. You mentioned the Symposium in Berkeley last Summer and the fact I contacted you for a couple copies of your software. I have no problems with you publicly releasing any of our communications. I don't even see why you would mention something like this. It's like you think I am hiding something. At the time we inquired about licenses we wanted to run through your software to see if our mastering engineers who've done many vinyl to digital transfers would be able to use the program. None of us had actually used it. I contacted Michael Fremmer to ask about Pure Vinyl as well and he inferred it was not a program one could just pick up easily. We took your offer to fly someone out to Berkeley very seriously but we had no information about you or anyone else that would come to the event. It was another unknown and another thing to deal with. Since our group of presenters at the Symposium was a very tight group of people we all knew well and people that would work well as a team we decided just to pass on the idea. You may have been the best person in the world to show the product, but we concluded that the whole would be greater than the sum of the parts. Maybe you have misunderstood what the Symposium was all about. It was a noncommercial event without any manufacturer sponsorship. Your statement about being "Friendly regarding a product" just doesn't add up. It would have made no sense to show our paying attendees a demonstration of A to D and bash a certain product. The Symposium was all about knowledge, not products. Those of us putting on the Symposium just aren't that type of people. I'm 100% positive your Apple / Steve Balmer statement is absolutely out of place here. Our interest in Pure Vinyl did not evaporate as you suggest. It just wasn't going to work out easily for us. Inferring that anyone involved with the Symposium offered disingenuous excuses is absurd and attacks our credibility unjustly. Contrary to you assertion, there was not enough time for a new user to to become familiar with the product. I'm sure we would have found this out sooner had we been able to use Pure Vinyl ourselves. In retrospect we could have downloaded a demonstration copy prior to making contact with you about full licenses. That would have been the best route to take, but hindsight is always 20/20. If I read another of your many inferences this time about Tim and the fact he did not mention he was an Amarra dealer it appears like you are saying this had an impact on the decision not to include Pure Vinyl at the Symposium or that he was intentionally hiding the fact during your phone call. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tim has no need to hide anything. If you feel something is not right about this I'm sure Tim would appreciate a call to straighten things out over the phone. Maybe all three of us can participate in a conference call where we can address any of the issues you've mentioned. This is the first I heard of any animosity you seem to be holding against me or anyone involved with the Symposium. Feel free to call me personally as well if you suspect I have been unfair or untruthful to you at any time. My business phone number is 612.234.2496. You can call at any time as I am frequently working on the site all hours of the day or night.

If there is a way to make this a Win-Win situation for everyone involved I'm all for it.

 

[Purite Audio]

Both are good players and both imo improve the level of sound quality in two channel domestic replay, which is what we are all here for isn't it?

Keith.

 

[SteveS1]

I think it's a pity that this thread has become what it is. I have both these products, either of which produce improved sonics over the standard iTunes output. They represent different approaches, and offer different features but both are aiming at sonic improvement and, to my ears, they both achieve that.

 

There have been a few questions/issues during my ownership of both and I have found the support to be prompt and helpful in each case.

 

It would be nice if some more people got the demos installed, asking advice where necessary, and we could get back to feedback and observations about playback. I'd hate to think that people were put off giving them a try. Not everyone has had problems setting them up by any means and if they do, there is plenty of help around.

 

Steve

 

[bmckenney]

Steve,

 

I have installed the demo of version 3 and wanted to add some user feedback on the product. At this point I can offer more feedback on the installation and use but not that much on the sound because I have not had enough listening time and there are other things going on that limits my ability to do some objective A/B listening.

 

First of all, the website is confusing and it was not clear which download I should use to try out PV for audio playback. Once that was cleared up, I wasn't sure if I also oneeded the application suite to get the most out of PV. I contacted support and questions were answered. The app suite is not required to demo the PV product if one is just interested in audio playback. The website content could certainly be improved. It is confusing.

 

Installation documentation is also confusing. It does state once installed, launch itunes, but it could be construed to launch the Apple version from the OSX dock and not from within PV's UI. That is unclear. Once I launched PV and noticed the itunes icon I clicked it. But when I hover over the itunes icon it is not evident that it is something that can be opened because the mouse pointer doesn't change. I do find the documentation is unclear, and the UI not very intuitive. And it seems to me that with minimal effort this could all be made much better IMO. I could easily see that a computer newbie would have no chance of getting this to work. However I did get it to work easily enough, but I felt like I was lucky to do so.

 

I opted to demo PV over Amarra because of the no hassle 15 day demo period. And I am attracted to the price. Amarra is constantly slammed by posters for being expensive.

 

This is my first listen to an itunes add-on audio playback app. I have not tried Amarra. My interest in PV comes from wanting to take computer audio playback up a notch in performance. I am setting up my first computer music server and comparing it to a player with the expectation that it betters the player by a long shot. Its early days in listening to the server system and the DAC is brand new and breaking in.

 

I have found there is a very large audible difference between itunes and itunes with PV. PV sounds so much smoother as well as being larger and more vivid, and also more resolving. And macro dynamics sound more fleshed out. Not sure about frequency response, tone and timbre yet.

 

Initially this is a big improvement over stock itunes from my point of view.

 

However I am struggling with a new DAC breaking in and there are things I don't like about the sound of my server system and now that I'm using PV I'm not sure if it's magnifying issues or of its the cause of issues as well. I'm not sure if I should turn off PV and work on the music server system and DAC auditioning, or leave it on. I think I'd like to leave it on because it helps me get the best out of a music server system compared to stock itunes.

 

Bryan

 

[ted_b]

is Pure Vinyl3 (Preview Release 4N4). It has the latest bugs worked out, the latest iTunes Music Sever capability, and is mainly intended for iTunes-based playback. Once downloaded, take some time to read the readme pdf's (I know, men don't read the manuals). Like most bleeding edge software, it is not exactly intuitive, but frankly the learning curve is overblown here IMO. In a perfect world it would be plug-n-play....and I'm sure both Jonathan and Rob are trying to get there with their respective music player software approaches (as are Peter, etc.). Our feedback will help on this journey. That might not seem fair but it works, I think. My $.02

 

[bottlerocket]

I think there is invaluable feedback for Channel D in this thread, so kudos to CA community for that. The first 2 paragraphs of bmckenney's post above in particular key in a simple issue to fix. Channel D fix up your website a bit!

 

[cfmsp]

 

Well said, Ted.

 

"I know, men don't read the manuals"

 

My motto is:

When all else fails, read the instructions.

If that doesn't help, try (actually) following the instructions.

 

FWIW, I did read the manuals in the midst of my 'initial experience'. they say precious little about simply using the software as a music player, which I found in the very last section of the 128 page user Guide. NOTE: Since I could not use Version 3 on my operating system, I never saw the 'release notes' included with the download of the Pre-Release version.

 

From the constructive feedback perspective, perhaps the promotion of PV as purely an iTunes Music Server deserves more easily discoverable instructions, and warnings/directions about which version to use (on the download page) if one wants to help users avoid such mishaps as I experienced.

 

Rob claims that there are explicit directions - on the download page - as to which version to use (for iTunes Music Server playback), but I beg to differ there. It merely says that the Pre-Release version 3 is improved over version 2.x.

 

Clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"A person that, I think is fair to say, who has been a visibly public and consistent promoter of a certain product (as is consistently mentioned in the sig line of his posts, and as I believe anyone who frequents this forum would glean), posts his own review of a competitor’s product?"

 

I am not a promoter of Amarra, I have the same interest in Amarra as any other customer of any product - I bought it and I want to get the best from it, including providing feedback to the provider, same as I've provided here on CA regarding other products.

 

I do serve as a conduit for sharing information about the product due to being a member of the beta test team. note: I am also a member of the beta test team of another very similar product, about which I cannot talk.

 

Anyone who has actually read my opinions on the sound of Amarra would know that I do NOT hear a significant difference between iTunes and Amarra, and I've not been bashful about saying that.

 

Indeed, I have been quite critical of Amarra in the past.

 

"(We surely can split hairs over whether “first impression” is the same as a “review” but it does seem to have a similar format posts that are called reviews in many hi-fi forums.)"

 

No hairs to split here, I made it very clear in my post that I was ONLY sharing my "INITIAL EXPERIENCE" with the product, and from a 'user experience' perspective, i.e. observing/sharing my own actions & thought processes to determine the intuitive nature of Pure Vinyl.

 

That you (and others) equate it to a review is a self-serving comment that seems designed to raise the validity of your indignation.

 

 

"For what it’s worth, no one here at Channel D recalls ever hearing from (or can find a record of) *anyone* named Clay or Clayton, in conjunction with Pure Vinyl in any way; so unless that's an assumed name he uses in this forum, he has been invisible regarding requesting technical support."

 

That is correct, I have not contacted technical support. I posted my experiences here and the fine group of fellow posters here have helped me out. As stated earlier in this thread, I'm not interested in software that requires developer support to setup, especially a music player.

 

"At which time we would immediately have determined he was using an outdated version of the iTunes server software and saved everyone a lot of trouble; on our download page it’s stated that the Pure Vinyl 3 Preview is the one to use for this purpose:"

 

EDIT: Actually your download page does NOT state that Pure Vinyl 3 Preview is the 'one to use for this purpose'.

 

It does states that this Pre-Release version will not WORK on OS X 10.4.11, the operating system I use on my primary system.

 

It also says "Includes enhanced (compared to Pure Vinyl 2.x) iTunes Music Server features.", which seems to indicate that Pure Vinyl 2.x is intended to be functional as an iTunes Music Server. It does NOT say that version 2.3 is OUT-DATED, as you suggest above.

 

I saw nothing on the download page that indicated I should NOT try to use 2.3 for iTunes playback.

 

from the website:

"Download Pure Vinyl 3 Preview Release 4n4: http://www.channld.com/pv30pr4n4.zip (2.6 MB) (December 18, 2009)

 

Pure Vinyl Preview Release 4n4 can coexist with the Pure Vinyl 2.3 Application Suite (which should be installed first, to get the most from this software). Preview Release 4n4 includes performance and usability enhancements. The recording functions supersede those in Pure Vinyl Recorder 2.3.

 

Includes enhanced (compared to Pure Vinyl 2.x) iTunes Music Server features. System requirements: Mac OS X 10.5 or 10.6; G4, G5 or Intel CPU."

 

 

As stated earlier in this thread, I had hoped to avoid bugs and issues by NOT using a Pre-Release version.

 

My 'initial experience' remains valid for your version 2.3, If it's that outdated perhaps you should pull it from your website so that users don't download it?

 

 

"BTW, it’s foolish to purchase an activation code for the product, even on anyone’s solid say-so, without first trying the demo yourself. "

 

That's why I tried to download your demo last night and try it out for myself.

 

"Also, this (Leopard-only but G4/G5/Intel compatible) Preview release product has been out for several months now, for a string of updates, as well as also being mentioned on this website for quite some time now, so please forgive me for thinking that it’s hard to imagine that someone who is so active here has only just now become aware of its existence."

 

Not sure what your point is here, Rob. I can't see any relevance to this thread unless you're suggesting that I have some ulterior motive. If you'd read my earlier posts, you would see that I thanked Paul/PJ for sharing the special pricing, and also posted that I'd been meaning to check it out. I needed to do so pronto given I'll be away for most of the weekend and the price disappears before I return.

 

 

"(Important: Channel D does indeed have a point by point feature comparison between Pure Vinyl and a competitor’s product posted on our website. If there were any errors in the comparison I’m sure we would have been contacted and alerted to them by now, and of course they would be corrected immediately. But we haven’t heard anything since posting that comparison on January 10.)"

 

Self-serving assumptions noted.

 

As for corrections,

How about posting the test results (using the most current version of iTunes at the time of your test) which 'prove' that Amarra plays songs via iTunes simultaneously (with Amarra playback) with the iTunes playback being only 30 db down - as your release notes suggest?

 

If you can do so, I'll issue a public apology in the venue of your choice - PV or CA for having described this statement as a classic case of FUD!

 

 

Thanks again for your response Rob.

 

respectfully,

Clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lars]

Clay is not that far off the mark when it comes to installation instructions for the media player. I loaded PV 2.3 first as suggested by the instructions; then PV3 (4n4). I couldn't get the darn thing to work. I finally uninstalled all of it and waited a week to try again. This time I loaded just PV3 and it has worked well ever since. And glad I did!

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for sharing that, I was starting to think I was a dunce with a capital 'D'.

 

I'll repeat again, however, that IF PV 2.3 had played the AIFF file as selected, as opposed to playing a different Lossless file, my experience (as reported) would have been completely different.

 

I'm still not sure what happened there.

 

thanks again,

clay

 

PS, the BGFF is spontaneously saying she hears more 'resonance', and deeper 'deeps' and higher 'highs' today. My recent change was to downgrade to a previous generation video card in my G5 to one with no fan and much lower AC reqts. uugghh! Getting the best sound from a computer based system is NOT for the faint of heart.

 

 

 

 

 

[jon.reichbach]

It has been brought to our attention certain statements regarding Amarra and its function.

These comments can be found on the Pure Vinyl website and list a comparison with another popular player "Player A" as well as comments that can be found in the release notes. As Player "A" is meant to describe Amarra we feel it necessary to respond.

 

First I would like to address the marketing term "Ghost Play". The phrase "Ghost Play" is misleading in describing the functions of Amarra and does little to provide useful information to users.

 

It is correct that both applications are playing audio. However, with the low data rates disk access is not a large consideration as our software as is optimized for up to 48 tracks of real time audio. Disk Activity is only one small part of the overall system design. It should also be noted that in Amarra 1.2 we introduced Playlist mode. In this mode, a user can quit iTunes™ and run completely independent of iTunes so this objection would not apply in any case.

 

The same term is also applied in a misleading manner in the document titled "Release Notes for PV 3 Preview 4n4 Notes". The release notes state that the minimum iTunes volume is -30 dB. This is wrong and can easily be tested by manually turning iTunes' playback volume control all the way to zero or -?, as Amarra does, and turning your amplifier gain up by 30 dB while playing back in iTunes.

 

The Release Notes then go on to describe that certain players use this incorrect -30 db as a fault in our design. This linking of an incorrect assertion and design choices seems to be unnecessary as well. Amarra does force the iTunes'  volume control to -?, so iTunes' volume is truly off.

 

We would ask these incorrect statements be removed from the PV website and literature immediately.

 

The next concern to be addressed is the actual comparison between Pure Vinyl and Player "A". Listed below is a partial lost of the items from the comparison with the correct information for our products.

 

Internal Signal Chain Resolution All 64 bit

Dither iZotope mBit Dither with output wordlength adjustment

High Quality Upsampling Amarra provides the iZotope Sample Rate Conversion as

background process as this provides superior results

NetSend Feature Distributed Audio Yes using AirFoil

 

Use with iTunes Remote Features Yes

Audio Hardware Support Any Core Audio Device

Copy Protection Dongle or License File (machine locked)

License Dongle or License File (2 systems)

Relies on iTunes "Ghost Play"?** No - and the term is misleading as well

Introduced to Market 2008, based on SSE (1986)

Price $295 (license file), $395 (with iLok),

or $995 for Full Version

Bloatware?? Please explain what the effect is on sound quality?

 

We would expect the following corrections be made to provide accurate information to customers. To suggest that these assertions are valid because Sonic Studio did not respond is disingenuous as well. Sonic Studio will soon post on our website a more complete comparison of playback engines that will provide a fair picture on playback and sound quality.

 

Lastly we feel that there is little need for confusion or misleading terms that are designed to confuse users. Users should be able to read correct information and then listen to what is best for them and decide on sound, features and ease of use. It is best for users to decide which applications suits their needs.

 

Best

 

Jonathan Reichbach, Sonic Studio

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

After a bit more time, I've figured out how to use PV somewhat effectively with the less well integrated (with iTunes) 2.3 version.

 

I put a message into PV support (yesterday afternoon) to help sort out my inability to listen to AIFF files, whereas ALAC, 'purchased' iTunes, and other MP3s play fine. If anyone has any clues on potential solutions to my inability to play AIFF tracks, please share.

 

I'll wait until after I can listen to my favorite music before offering my thoughts on the sound.

 

clay

 

PS, Looks like the ball's now in Rob's court for following through on this claim:

"If there were any errors in the comparison I’m sure we would have been contacted and alerted to them by now, and of course they would be corrected immediately."