Pure Music

[Lars]

Shuffle is not allowed at my house. :-)

 

[Jim L.]

To shuffle or not to shuffle, that is the question!

 

[cfmsp]

 

"Shuffle is not allowed at my house. :-)"

 

Great timing, as I was about to marvel at your music player "karma" - since you so rarely seem to suffer the same ills I do with music players. :-)

 

Frankly, my 'value' in beta testing (to folks like Jon Reichbach, et al) is NOT so much my listening skills, but rather, I seem to be more likely to stumble upon 'bugs', apparently due to my 'karma'. I guess that's what I get for being skeptical/critical. ;0

 

For the record, I don't use 'shuffle' that often, but I do quite often 'listen to my inner DJ', which is a phrase another CA reader used to describe a certain listening style. IOW, I often select another song with less than 5 seconds remaining on the currently playing song.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

[bdiament]

I've come to like Shuffle myself.

 

I find some of the segues quite entertaining, such as going from Fairport Convention to Aldo Ciccolini playing Satie to Tom Waits to Bill Evans to Stravinsky's "Firebird".

 

But most importantly, it has re-acquainted me with some wonderful recordings in my collection, that I might not have had in mind for a particular listening session. It acts as a sort of spotlight on some forgotten treasures in the collection and reminds me to re-investigate them in detail.

 

Though most of my listening is to whole albums (I like staying with an artist for a while), I wouldn't want to be without Shuffle.

Are folks saying this just doesn't work in PM?

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Lars]

PV works for me. I usually do the same thing you do Barry. Smoke comes out of the iPodTouch when I listen.

 

[cfmsp]

 

PV?

 

This thread is about a beta version of Pure Music!

 

I'm just sayin',

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Lars,

 

"PV works for me. I usually do the same thing you do Barry. Smoke comes out of the iPodTouch when I listen."

 

;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[Jim L.]

I believe Pure Music is the same as Pure Vinyl without the vinyl recording part. Other than no upsampling at this point, which I do not use, it operates the same. So I believe comparisons are valid.

 

[ted_b]

code base is identical/same/shared. Only sonic differences would be the differences in PV vs PM versions (many more PV flavors out there).

 

[Paul R]

I build up favorite lists of songs, and my wife and I "play" that way too. She selects a song, then I do, then she does, and so on.

 

It is really quite fun, and as a side effect, you often rediscover treasures in your music collection you have forgotten about. At least we do.

 

We often use the iTunes "DJ" feature for this, though you have to keep it filled up or iTunes will start picking stuff for you!

 

-Paul

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"So I believe comparisons are valid."

 

Don't mind me, I've just giving Steve some good natured ribbing - every time anyone posts about issues with Pure Music, he replies that Pure Vinyl works great for him.

 

OTOH, we can't assume that a beta version of a new product has all the same features/functions with the same level of stability even if it is from the same code base, due to something called unintended consequences, which can occur with any code release.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lars]

Clay,

 

I love saying that everything works great for me-must drive you crazy! Pure Vinyl had a number of bugs in release 5 that I had to notify Rob about. It was not smooth sailing until the most recent releases. But I have been unable to lock up or crash the most recent release of the program.

 

Pure Music will need some fine tuning, but if the sound is right, we are in for a good time.

 

Did you purchase PM or PV?

 

I'm anxiously awaiting Amarra's response (1.3) to Pure Vinyl/Pure Music.

 

Steve

 

[bugstone]

I can't help but be amazed that Apple (a 203 Billion Dollar Company) refuses to make iTunes truly audiophile grade. iTunes has been around for a decade and there has been no attempt to make it state of the art sonically. I do appreciate smaller companies like Sonic Studio and Channel D taking up the slack though.

 

Bugs

 

[Paul R]

Can you be a little more explanatory about how you feel iTunes is not "state of the art" sonically? So far as I can see, it puts out a clean, bit-perfect audio signal, though I admit, it would cooler if it would automatically switch bit rates. It plays uncompressed bit for bit audio files, rips and burns, and manages a ton of non-"audiophile" tasks, such as managing streaming, synching, sharing, mobile devices, and more.

 

At an infinitely less cost than the competition - any of the competition, even MediaMonkey - I suppose I can be bothered to change the bit rate manually, so I don't think that can count against it. Memory play - perhaps, though honestly, itunes buffers from the disk, and any halfway modern computer will have the entire audio file buffered into disk buffers well before the player will ask for the data.

 

I'm not challenging you, even though I obviously do not totally agree with you. I am just honestly interested in what would make you feel that way.

 

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Gordon,

 

"Juergen is correct in saying that padded 16 to 24 bits is not an issue and zero=zero. A better way to say it is the end analog output would not be any different for 16 bit data padded with zero into 24 bit data or outputting the same signal in it's 16 bit form."

 

Yes. Perhaps I didn't phrase my feeling clearly (though I did start by saying "I understand padding with zeros is benign..."). I'd still prefer leaving 16-bit files at 16-bits and 24-bit files at 24. I don't want the software or computer to do anything at all that isn't absolutely necessary to deliver the audio.

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[barrows]

If you have a decent system, the sonic quality between either Pure Music or Amarra and Itunes is easy to discern. In fact, on my system, Itunes sounds "broken" in comparison to Pure Music or Amarra-the difference in sonic performance is not subtle at all.

I would encourage you to download the free 15 day demo of Pure Music to experience the difference for yourself.

Yes, Itunes is bit perfect, and I have not heard a single understandable explanation for the sound differences between different playback engines (which are bit perfect, like Pure Music vs. Itunes) but that does not change the fact that the differences in sound are easily audible. Perhaps sometime we will have an understandable, rational, explanantion for the difference in sound between bit perfect playback software choices, for now one must just accept what is easily audible.

 

[Paul R]

Perhaps. On the other hand, our best system here, while simple compared to yours, ain't no slouch. While we can discern a difference between Pure Music and iTunes, neither one is clearly superior to the other. iTunes seems to do a better job with Jazz, and Pure Music seems to do a better job with Orchestral works.

 

And at that, only with high bitrate music - 24/96 or above. At 24/44.1, we can not clearly say one is better than the other with any music type we listen to. Different perhaps, but not clearly better or worse.

 

Pure Music is worth $79, and I think we ordered a copy the other day. We have had the demo version down here for about a week listening to it. Both through speakers and through our favorite Grado headphones.

 

I will point out that the Placebo effect here is operative. When I *knew* which player was playing, my choices were different than when we played the same material in blind tests. A lot of people get hung up on that "free" thing.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bdiament]

A few thoughts for a Thursday morning:

 

I think a lot of folks think of "bit perfect" or "bit accurate" as an end rather than as a start. An important distinction in my view.

 

The same data does not guarantee the same sound. (We don't listen to data). I've been saying since 1983 that CDs pressed at different plants -sometimes different lines at the same plant- sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. Yet extracting the data shows it to be identical.

 

Playback of the same file from SSD and from spinning hard disk sounds different, though the data remains identical.

 

***

As to one program being "better" for jazz and another for other types of music, this of course is a personal call and one I would not argue with as it expresses a preference.

 

I believe though, there is such a thing as being accurate to the source and a component or application that is truer to the source will not "know" whether the music is jazz, classical, hip hop, etc.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[cfmsp]

"I love saying that everything works great for me-must drive you crazy!"

 

 

Well, of course, Lord Buddha suggests not to be envious of those experiencing better karma, but rather, be happy for them, which I am for you, but then that old saw about rubbing 'salt in the wound' also comes into play, i.e. every time those of us sharing our misery - which loves company - due to current inabilities of PM chime in, we get to hear about your quite different experience.

 

"Pure Vinyl had a number of bugs in release 5 that I had to notify Rob about. It was not smooth sailing until the most recent releases."

 

This is quite helpful to know. And Channel D did ask (me) for patience.

 

 

"But I have been unable to lock up or crash the most recent release of the program."

 

Uh oh, sounds like a challenge! Perhaps I should get right on it?! ;0

 

 

"Did you purchase PM or PV? "

 

Not yet, still have a week or so on the trial for PM, which is the more interesting of the two, for me.

I'll likely purchase it however, even though there's also 'Door Number Three' to consider.

 

Let us know if you hear any differences between latest PV and PM. If not, that'll be great news.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

... when I said one was "better" than the other. And of course, pretty much any difference in software or equipment or signal path can make a difference.

 

On the other hand, as you point out, preferences (or opinions) are just that - preferences or opinions. When you start to gather facts, and try to separate out opinions, it is indeed a difficult thing to do in the audio world. Especially since we tend to buy, enjoy, and recommend based upon our own opinions. That is part of what makes the whole thing so much fun of course, and it is also the right way to do it.

 

But at the end of the day, if there is an objective audible difference, then there is something there that can be identified, measured, and explained. And facts that explain a difference make it easier to rationally discuss choices based upon opinions.

 

And you are very right (in my opinion) to point out that bit perfect is only a starting point. I personally think that just like IT gear, audio gear has very specific "levels" of performance. Within any specific level of performance (no matter how you define those levels) two amplifiers with the same specs, from the same manufacture, even from the same batch, will sound different.

 

Maybe not a lot, maybe not better than the other, but they will sound different. Perhaps one has been "burned in" and one has not. Or one was burned in attached to a particular set of speakers that of course, represent a different and varying load. The possibilities are nearly infinite, and are affected drastically by equipment tolerances.

 

And just like in IT gear, the quality and uniformity of a device tends to follow in direct relation to its price, though there are always exceptions to that rule.

 

The point being, there is a point where audio gear is "good enough" to clearly reveal the engineering choices made when a piece of music was recorded. At this level, I personally find that the mastering choices far outweigh the differences between relatively similar equipment. Also, they are easier to decompose and get a more more objective measurement of.

 

[insert edit] I missed a paragraph here - I meant to tie in that our (or at least my) preferences are tilted by the types of music I enjoy, and what I consider the best sounding mixes on a disc. Some lower-end gear sounds better to me than some much more expensive gear because of that. A DacMagic sounds better handling DVD and Television audio to me than a non oversampling DAC, even a much more expensive one. For music, I think I prefer NOS Dacs. -Paul [end edit]

 

In other words, some systems are going to sound "better" when playing Jazz than others. That's even without getting into psychoacoustics. Of course, people will choose to optimize their systems to play the types of music they favor. I have become very interested in measuring and identifying those differences, and there is a large body of work out there on the subject readily available to study. It's also a lot of fun.

 

I do not mean to sound like I am bragging, but I am an expert in networking and communications. Probably because of that my "home"network is probably better equipped and tuned than most commercial networks, and we don't have dropouts, high jitter, queuing delays, packet loss, or most of the other common issues you hear about here. Oh, occasionally a passing plane will paint the house directly with a high power radar and I have a small blip, but no way in the world would I put up with the stuff most people do put up with.

 

Which is awfully funny to hear myself say, because if I replace "network" with "audio gear" I sound the same as the folks here who are really intense about their audio gear.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bugstone]

I was just on the Apple website and they have a page for Amarra and Pure Vinyl in their download section. I did not see anything for Pure Music; but, it has only been out for a week. This makes me thrilled. I was worried that Apple was completely uninterested in sound quality; but, this demonstrates that they are at least conscious of audiophiles needs. The page states,

 

"About Amarra Computer Music Player

The audiophile quality computer music player for the most discriminating enthusiast. As computers play an increasing role in our home computer based music system Amarra’s superior sound quality can improve the sound of your music playback."

 

So, I guess it is only a matter of time before Apple puts some effort into audiophile sound themselves. Here are the links:

 

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/amarracomputermusicplayer.html

 

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/audio/purevinyl.html

 

Bugs

 

[Lars]

I listened to Pure Music 1.02 today and compared it to the latest Pure Vinyl (5n1). I heard no appreciable difference between the two programs.

 

Steve

 

[ted_b]

changes...but then again you kept thinking it had upsampling all along.

 

Anyway, the newest version of Pure Music (v 1.02) is now up on the site for download/trial (and it reset the trial timer to 15 days). Upsampling option (same as PV) is now included! Also, and although Rob and I only chatted about this on Monday, he implemented a way for the iPod/touch remote app (Apple remote) to see the time-remaining function in iTunes and decrement it on the remote's timebar (a check mark in PM preferences options). It is not per second, but looks to be about every 3 seconds...nice.

 

Haven't checked whether the occasional audio hiccups (usually after bouncing around while in memory playback mode) bug is improved or not. Will report back.

 

[fradi]

I already had these (rare) hickups in 1.02 today after jumping around in memory playback mode.

 

Frank

 

[coot]

AIFF > Macmini > BenchmarkHDR. 44.1, 88.2 and 96, none of them play gapless in PM from memory. Could someone who has done it please list the steps that work for you?

Thanks.

 

BTW, when I play Amarra gapless, the gap is still there -- just very tiny, which still bugs me. Not as smooth as iTunes alone or CDP.