Pure Music

[ted_b]

preferences for those albums you want gapless

 

[chrille]

Hi Paul, it seems you are having a bit of a hard time deciding which one you prefer, Itunes or PM ?

From my own listening and comparisons with hi rez masterfiles, I can only say that PM very clearly outperforms Itunes on all types of acoustical music.

The difference is audible already at such low rez level as 16/44.1 !

But of course, and that is where it really matters ,when you listen to professional classical masterfiles 24/88.2 and upwards it becomes much more obvious.

 

If you can not clearly say one is better than the other I would say that the reason for that being so, is to be found in the fact that the lower the resolution the more difficult it gets to hear any improvements.

Any improvement is partly masked by the low resolution level.

Maybe your system is also a bit lacking?

The fact that large scale classical and opera material simply is the most demanding material to record makes it also very clear as to why you hear differences between Jazz and orchestral music .

Your preference for Itunes on Jazz over PM can most probably also be found in the fact that for some reason you prefer the less resolved, more distorted Itunes, over the more resolved one.

Lets face it, there are still people out there who maintain CD is perfect sound forever and prefer 16/44.1 ie cd quality over 24/96 .

What they are in fact letting the world know is simply the fact that they don´t hear very well.

They are in fact everytime they defend low rez CD over any hi rez format, only revealing their own lack of discrimination.

 

I have seen some posts here where posters don´t hear any diffference between a hi rez download and a 16/44.1 one.

Someone asked am I doing something wrong?

He most probably was.

 

The real factors at work here are factors of resolution and complexity of music.

 

Those who only listen to "electronic pop" and other artifically produced music don´t need to spend any money on PM or for that matter most other of the things discussed on this forum really. That would in most cases only be placebo effects as you try to fault PM with .

 

On the contrary, in this case though,it is not a case of Placebo, the difference is there and very clearly too, provided you can hear the difference between low rez and hi rez!

 

[Paul R]

LOL! Somehow I feel that was what my dad would have called a backhanded compliment.

 

You make some very good points, but there are some I disagree with. For example, playing 44.1/16 music, there *is* very little difference between iTunes and Pure Music. Personally, I think P.M. sounds "thin" and "slower" than iTunes at that resolution, when all other settings are equal. (Bit perfect playback, no funny iTunes settings enabled, etc.) That well could be placebo effect on my part though, or just uneducated ears.

 

[Edit: My wife says I am an idiot and that P.M. always sounds better because it presents a much wider soundstage. She was listening for that, and I noted it too. So objectively, you are precisely correct, PM does sound better. I seem to take minor issue with some specific items, the sound of French Horns in particular. -Paul ]

 

At high resolution, Pure Music walks away with the best sound in my opinion - easily outperforming anything I have on a PC or iTunes on a Mac. My opinion is reinforced the more I listen. At CD resolution, it is not clearly better to me - but it is very clearly different.

 

This agrees with your supposition above- "If you can not clearly say one is better than the other I would say that the reason for that being so, is to be found in the fact that the lower the resolution the more difficult it gets to hear any improvements."

 

By the way, do you know how Pure Music compares to Amarra? I have not heard Amarra so I have no basis for comparison, but I find it difficult to believe that howsoever Amarra manipulates the data stream, it will sound $900 better than Pure Music.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

"I heard no appreciable difference between the two programs."

 

Thanks Steve,

 

I purchased Pure Music last night - apparently just in time, as it's now up to $129, although still a fraction of the cost of Amarra.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

[coot]

Thanks Ted.

I remember now. Seems as though its not the PM memory that's at fault -- it's the operator's memory! If only someone could fix that...

 

[Lars]

I hope Amarra comes up with something special in the next release. I put the iLock away for safe keeping.

 

[chrille]

Hello again Paul ,

I hope my post didn´t offend you .But sometimes there are posters here with very strong opinions. But without much of a clue as to what is realistic and good sound from a HI FI point of view.

I am in a somewhat different position, since I sometimes get to hear both the live orchestra playing and can also listen directly to the masterfile at recording sessions.

I also have quite a few such masterfiles on my macbook pro and with the PM player they sound much better than via Itunes.

I have only got one 16/44.1 file and although it sounds a wee bit better than via Itunes it still sucks compared to hi rez files.

 

On the other hand I have not heard amarra and probably won´t even bother to download their demo.

I already bought PM and wouldn´t even dream of paying the ridiculous price Amarra sells for.

Their price must be one of the GREATEST RIP OFFS ever in the crazy world of HI FI.

I think it highly unlikely that it will sound any better than PM in any case.

 

 

 

 

 

[atomheart]

Just noticed there's a 1.1 version out, compared to the 1.02 version I downloaded just the other day.

 

[bdiament]

The following is a question, not an observation:

 

When comparing playback in two apps, say iTunes and another server app, has anyone noticed a difference in sonics that might be attributable to some manipulation of the m/s information?

 

I often hear or read comments regarding tonality and spatial information. Both of these can be altered if the original m:s ratio within a file is changed by the software. For example, some folks I know have commented regarding their feeling that one app might "push" the m (i.e. common to both channels) component forward at the expense of the s (i.e. difference) component...or vice versa.

 

Certainly, with most recordings, it would not be difficult to add "space" with a slight goose of the s component, just as it would not be difficult to add vocal "presence" or bass "attack" with a slight goose of the m component. These "effects" are not uncommon in mastering. I can see how an app might achieve at least a part of what distinguishes it by using a method like this.

 

To be clear, I am not suggesting an app that delivers more space has had its s component raised. Clearly, some software (and hardware) is simply better at revealing the space in the recording.

 

This would be one of the many areas in audio where one must distinguish between what may be found to be "pleasant" and fidelity to the original source. In my view, both paths are valid, depending on what one seeks. (My personal preference is fidelity to the original source, for better or worse. But I know folks who choose the other path.)

 

Again, just a question. Perhaps something to listen for in comparisons... of apps as well as hardware.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[Lars]

Both Channel D and Sonic Studio state that their programs do not add or subract anything unless feautres are engaged (equalization, oversampling,etc.). Both of these companies claim their software sounds "better" because of superior math or algorithms.

 

Given that both programs convert data from integer to floating point suggests that this conversion may be the source of the difference in sound.

 

But in the end, just as with every component we purchase, we can only select what sounds best to us. Which program is truly accurate will be very difficult for audiophiles to determine.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Lars,

 

"But in the end, just as with every component we purchase, we can only select what sounds best to us. Which program is truly accurate will be very difficult for audiophiles to determine."

 

Understood. Having access to the masters does make things easier.

 

Still, one thing I've suggested to folks is to listen to differences between recordings. Every master I've ever heard sounds quite different from every other master. Therefore, the most neutral hardware/software will reveal the greatest differences between recordings.

 

When hardware/software introduces a coloration, it does this for everything passing through it, making differences between recordings appear less than they would be otherwise. (For example, one DAC that comes to mind, tends to give every recording a similar "character" in the treble; something I attribute at least partly to its non-switchable, real time SRC.)

 

I have not played with Amarra extensively but am quite familiar with soundBlade as it is one of the tools I use in my work. For my ears, soundBlade excels at providing the sound of the file, unaltered, leaving differences in the inherent sonics between files intact.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[earflappin]

Barry, I know what that one DAC is that you referenced and you are correct. There is a consistent character - I would argue across the entire spectrum and not just in the treble - that gives every recording a similar character. Going back to your original post on the comparison of that DAC with the ULN-8 reminded me that in that test one of the configurations you used was using the ULN-8 to provide the AES output. According to Bordin, who posts on this forum, and who has done direct comparisons of various interfaces including the Lynx AES16 vs the ULN-2, it was his conclusion the ULN-2 is the better transport/source solution. What I find interesting about that is that you likely heard this DAC at its best and better than what I am able to hear it at given my Lynx AES16 interface.

 

[davidR]

You guys talking about Prism converters for the DAC with a signature? Just a wild guess.

 

[bdiament]

Hi earflappin,

 

"Going back to your original post on the comparison of that DAC with the ULN-8..."

 

Might be a mistake there.

I don't believe I've ever posted about that particular DAC vs. the ULN-8.

 

While it was included in the first blind tests (comparing how each of the A-D sections in more than a dozen units performed, encoding three different 1" analog masters - classical, jazz and pop), I don't consider it competition for the ULN-8 (or the ULN-2 or 2882). The idea there was to see which sounded the most like the originals, i.e. which imposed the least amount of their own character on the sound.

 

Regarding my previous post, exactly which unit it is isn't important to the point I was trying to make. I just cited it as one example (of many) where a piece of hardware or software imposes a character that diminishes the differences between recordings. Differences that are preserved by more neutral gear. And differences that tell us hardware/software is "getting out of the way". I find this valuable when masters are not available for direct comparison, which for most folks, is all the time.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

[Lars]

I just received an email from Rob concerning the new Pure Music release and future developments. I just discussed the floating point conversion that Amarra and Pure Vinyl/Pure Music perform. Well, Rob is now testing his programs to run in hardware integer. Also, a note about Tiger.

 

"New Pure Music 1.1 release is available now for download. Supports Hog

mode; native hardware integer (and plug in support) is just around the

bend. That's in testing now. All of this will be rolled into Pure

Vinyl, but on a slower schedule, because the testing protocol for that

product is much more involved when it comes to adding new features."

 

"Also, it seems that some folks aren't willing to break from Tiger /

OS X 10.4.x, because the sound is supposedly better with certain

hardware and software, and accordingly, there's some mud being stirred

in the water about Pure Music / Pure Vinyl not supporting Tiger / OS

X 10.4.x. However, one of the support guys here thought that perhaps

the sound quality issue is only related to the software they're using,

and isn't hardware and OS dependent after all. And that by sticking

with this combo, and not upgrading to Leopard, they are cheating

themselves out of something better."

 

"I would have to agree with that."

 

Rob

 

Looks like great stuff is just on the horizon!

 

Steve

 

[Paul R]

Oh heavens no! You didn't offend me at all. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.

 

I know just enough about this stuff to know I don't know much of anything at all - and I appreciate you guys letting me "sit in," as it were. Maybe in a year or two, I can actually contribute something useful in terms of opinions on audio gear!

 

I do have strong opinions about some things, for example I have a strong opinion about Amarra that just happens to agree with yours. I also agree with you about Pure Music, but not so much because of the audio-knowledge. I just believe they are good people putting out a hot product, and trying to do it the right way while still making a bit of profit. I sent them dollars too- though I admit to making sure I did so while the introductory price was in effect!

 

I try to support people doing things I respect - software guys as well as musicians and engineers. I try to support them both with my voice and to a more limited extent, with my wallet.

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"Both Channel D and Sonic Studio state that their programs do not add or subract anything unless feautres are engaged (equalization, oversampling,etc.). Both of these companies claim their software sounds "better" because of superior math or algorithms."

 

I don't believe this claim, personally, if they are positing that it applies to bit perfect playback, i.e. unmanipulated data.

 

Arguably, in the instance described above - no features being engaged - no conversion (at all) should sound 'better' than converting to float (and back?), UNLESS possibly these conversions are somehow 'additive' to the sound, i.e.., in the manner that 2nd order harmonics are additive to the 'sound' of tube playback, :-) Note: I have a tube preamp, and I have a Fi Super X 300B amp on the way!

 

OTOH, I don't even think we'll hear a significant difference when Rob switches to purely integer handling of the (bit perfect) data.

 

I believe that software's effect is still relatively unknown, but perhaps more likely due to effects of the processing footprint, rather than ever more precise calculations, unnecessary as the latter are (for bit perfect playback).

 

As I said in another post recently, we could put all we know about why software-based music players sound different (one from another) into a thimble and still have room left over for all we know about why USB cables make a difference when used in asynchronous mode.

 

HOG mode could be interesting, in my opinion.

 

disclaimer: the opinions above are mine, and mine alone - please don't try to take them, and I'll try not to take yours!

 

clay

 

 

 

 

[earflappin]

I believe Gordon Rankin mentioned that the new version of JRMC uses an integer mode when you use WASAPI. I took this to mean that they do not go through 32 bit math if you don't use their volume control. What I can say is that JRMC sounds excellent.

 

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi clay,

 

"...Both of these companies claim their software sounds "better" because of superior math or algorithms.

 

I don't believe this claim, personally, if they are positing that it applies to bit perfect playback, i.e. unmanipulated data..."

 

 

 

 

My understanding (always subject to modification of course) is that to a certain extent, any program is doing some sort of processing in order to play the file.

 

I have a number of apps I use for editing/mastering. While my two favorites can be shown to deliver bit accurate playback, they don't sound the same. (This without performing any audio process; just playing back a file.) This is why, in an earlier post, I said bit accuracy (or "bit perfect playback") is a start -and a good one- but no more than that.

 

If indeed some process (not sonic manipulation but simply math) is performed in order to achieve simple playback, then decisions of the programmer (e.g. when to round, when not to, etc.) could conceivably have a direct impact on the audible results.

 

Just my perspective.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

"While my two favorites can be shown to deliver bit accurate playback, they don't sound the same."

 

I don't disagree with this at all, indeed, that's been my experience.

 

 

"If indeed some process (not sonic manipulation but simply math) is performed in order to achieve simple playback, then decisions of the programmer (e.g. when to round, when not to, etc.) could conceivably have a direct impact on the audible results."

 

For a data file to be bit perfect (as compared to the file received as input), it must have been rounded back (e.g., integer to float and then back to integer) to the same value it had prior to the 'processing'. IOW, any decision making on the part of the developer as to when to round (that resulted in anything other than bit perfect output) would be what I referred to as 'additive' in nature, i.e. not completely accurate to the input. It might sound better, but it wouldn't be the same as the input.

 

Here's a far out idea - suppose that improper (ie. unnecessary) 'rounding' somehow resulted in very subtle differences in signals between left and right channels, or the equivalent of an increase in the difference / side signal, or similar?

 

Said another way, if the signals were subtly different, i.e. at a very low level, the result would be a decrease in the solidity of the center image and correspondingly a bigger, wider soundstage, right? Wouldn't that be a hoot? ;0

 

Fortunately, Rob is soon releasing a version without the fancy algorithms, and we'll be able to see/hear for ourselves. As I said above, I don't expect that to yield an improved sound in and of itself, but boy if it does - that would be proof that the claims of better algorithms were misguided, if still well intentioned.

 

I applaud Rob's efforts - to implement HOG mode, and then to eliminate the float processing for those who desire the simplest processing possible!

 

As I understand it, HOG mode is a requirement for processing the signals without converting to float (for handoff to Core Audio), but this alone might yield sonic benefits (a la Exclusive mode on Windows). Think - ultimate re-nicing option.

 

I especially applaud Rob for sharing a version with HOG without purely integer processing so that those who might be able to hear such differences (are you listening, Steve?) can report as to whether it was so.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lars]

Clay,

 

I'm afraid I can't report on the latest Pure Music since Pure Vinyl doesn't have the HOG version yet. I guess I'm going to have to let you and Ted be the first reporters.

 

Native hardware integer playback has the potenital to be the best sounding, theoretically speaking, compared to what we have now.

 

All of this is good stuff as far as I'm concerned.

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

Yes, this is all good stuff!!

 

I just installed a bunch of Alan Maher AC circuit tuning gear this weekend - long overdue - so my sound system will be unreliable for the next few weeks as it "breaks" in.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

[ted_b]

of family tragedies (my wife lost her mom 14 days ago and just lost her younger brother suddenly yesterday)..and we lost our best friend (11 yr old Rubin, our dog) this past week......I'm actually using the system and music to find respite in these tough evenings......but may not get to this latest PM until after the weekend. Will report back.

 

[Paul R]

For whatever that may be worth to you. Take care of yourself and your wife man- this will be here when you have had a little time to recover.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Jim L.]

Ted,

I am very sorry to hear about all your losses. Music, indeed has been a comfort to me through the difficulties in my life. I'll be praying for you and your family.

 

Regards,

Jim