Amarra Is Offically A Thing of the Past.....Thanks To Pure Vinyl's New Pure Music for just $99

[ted_b]

That preference (upsampling, not oversampling ) is grey'd out.

 

[Lars]

You're right Ted! I forgot about that. I remember Rob said that oversampling would be added in the near future.

 

[Paul R]

Ye Gads! Has anyone gotten Pure Music working with Airfoil? It does not work here.

 

Think of two cats contesting their territory, in a tin garbage can in the rain.

 

Unless of course, I setup something wrong, but I don't think so. Works great with just iTunes.

 

-Paul

 

 

[Paul Held]

Folks, trying the demo just now and things so horrid - there must be something wrong with my config.

 

I have a Macmini, ALAC media, toslink to a 24/96 tube dac.

 

Audio midi is 44.1, 2/24 input and output. I tried both this and 96, 2/24 and they both produced distorted awful sound.

 

I must be missing something. Can someone please weigh in with advice as to by brain-lock?

 

thanks Paul

 

ps: my rig sounds great with straight iTunes. Audio midi 44.1, 2/24.

 

[barrows]

been listening to Pure Music for a couple of days now. A few bugs here and there, but nothing really bad. So far I am very impressed with the sound, and expect I will be purchasing this.

I am playing 44.1/16 and 24/96 aiff files via toslink from my Black MacBook (4 Gb RAM), and have no problems so far even playing gapless 24/96.

Occasionally something weird happens (bug) like audio stopping, but a restart always fixes it-usually this only happens while I am fiddling as well (opening and closing activity monitor, tagging music files for gapless, etc).

Paul: how much RAM do you have?, try converting some files to aiff and see if that fares better.

 

[Paul Held]

2 G in my case on the Mini. Plays fine but sounds awful. Can you think of something I'm missing? I've tried both 16bit and 24bit input and output, as well as 44.1 and 96 - no go!

 

help! thx

 

[audiozorro]

Pure Music, a product that’s not needed or won’t be properly supported.

 

This is similar to a previous criticism I voiced over Amarra Mini. Software developers have enough of a hard time supporting one product and the flagship product usually garners the lion share of time, money and other resources from the developer. Typically, problems from flagship product users are more of a priority that often results in lesser product users being frustrated or unhappy with the lack of customer support or problems that only occur in the lesser product while the flagship product works fine. In the case of Amarra Mini not only did the developer cripple software features and capabilities, but he also changed the GUI, when the reality is that he just needed to lower the price of the flagship product, Amarra, to appeal to a greater number of users.

 

IMO it would be better if the developer lowered the price of Pure Vinyl to a weighted price between $79 to $229 based on the projected sales of Pure Music and Pure Vinyl, and then scrapped Pure Music or perhaps renamed the flagship product to Pure Music & Digital Vinyl. So assuming 2 units of Pure Music sold for every 1 unit Pure Vinyl, the equivalent price for Pure Music & Digital Vinyl is only $129. Which of you CA readers would buy a crippled product for $79 with probably more bugs, if you could buy the flagship product for $129?

 

If there is any truth in what I say and if Channel D does not change their pricing strategy, users IMO would be better off just spending the additional $150 to get a more capable product and without the bugs of the lesser product. Any CA reader that bought Pure Music would not be happy if Pure Vinyl sounded significantly better and the reverse is more unacceptable. Time will tell, and like Amarra, it will be interesting to follow the Pure Music/Vinyl threads to see the problems, successes or failures.

 

Finally, it was my impression that Mac hardware and Apple software generally costs more than the comparable Windows hardware and software, but it works and works well. Unfortunately, these lesser products, Amarra Mini and now Pure Music, and their business/development strategies remind me of the numerous product failures in the Windows world.

 

 

[barrows]

I think your criticism is a little premature. The current version of Pure Music is beta, and only just released. Apparently you have not tried it?

There are very few bugs, and the ones I have found are only minor inconveniences-as opposed to the full demo verison of Amarra which I tried (the "flagship" product) which still (after being available a long time) has some very serious bugs (vs. the minor ones in beta Pure Music) including locking up the whole computer requiring a force quit.

Additionally, unlike Amarra Mini, Pure Music is not "crippled", it features all the playback capabilities of Pure Vinyl, including memory play, and the ability to play back all resolutions to 24/192. The only Pure Vinyl features that Pure Music does not have are the features specifically relating to vinyl playback, recording, and editing.

I suspect there are many potential users, like me, who do want or need the added complexity of the vinyl playback, recording, and editing features of Pure Vinyl, for us, Pure Music makes a lot of sense.

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

I think it was quite smart to release Pure Music for a lesser price, without all the extra stuff.

 

clay

 

[Paul R]

Well, I played with this over the weekend and came to some tentative conclusions:

 

(1) Pure music does sound good - when it works properly - but it often does not work properly.

 

• It doesn't like Apple Lossless files very much at all, and will often distort sound from them.
  
• It plays AIFF files nicely, but will often have "false starts" playing them. This is evidenced by the song will start playing, but then stop for a few seconds, then restart from the beginning. Note: This is not an artifact caused by the machine it is running on. Same problem shows up on a Macbook/4gb, a MacBook Pro/4gb, and a Dual 2.66gb Quad Core Mac Pro with 16GB of ram.
  It has a problem working with remote devices using Airfoil. The sound that comes out is terribly distorted. Sounds like wet chickens mating in a tin garbage can.
  

 

(2) Airfoil is not causing the problem, but it is probably some kind of issue involving the format of the music stream. Or a conflict with iTunes/Airfoil speakers and PureMusic.

 

YMMV, IMNSHO, TINAR, and any other usual disclaimers.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

I am not having the above problems: MacBook (black) with 4 Gb. RAM, playing aiff files only, 24/44.1 and 24/96, on an external disc, using memory play, and gapless playback where appropriate. I am outputting either USB or Toslink.

I do not consider wireless streaming really viable for high end playback, so it does not concern me.

Occasionally, PM seems to interrupt playback (like once a day, while playing all day long), this sometimes requires a re-launch to clear. I have not ever experienced any distorted playback.

One album has had some difficulties: Ana Hina, by Natacha Atlas. This would just play the first track, and then stop-I found a work around by tagging the album as gapless, now the whole album loads into memory and plays back without difficulty.

Remember, if one is playing compressed files, the files have to processed on the fly, and this will take more memory and CPU load. Additionally, if streaming wirelessly with AE, all files are sent as Apple Lossless, so once again you are dealing with processing the files on the fly.

As usual, more memory is better. 4 Gb. seems to be just barely enough to play a 50 minute album in 24/96 as gapless-if gapless playback is important and you need to play high res gapless, one of the newer Macs set up with 6-8 Gb. of RAM appears to be the way to go.

 

[audiozorro]

Granted my criticism may be a little premature (as I said time will tell), but some computer audiophiles are making decisions now. And in the little niche market of computer audiophiles who are willing to pay money for software players when many other players are free, the situation sometimes prompts me to suggest alternative strategies for the software developers to pursue.

 

At the time, perhaps some thought I was premature in my criticism of Amarra pricing and later, the introduction of Amarra Mini. My criticisms and suggestions are just my opinion that users and software developers are free to ignore. But if the title of the original post has merit, that Amarra is officially a thing of the past, then I do not see the win-win outcome for Amarra buyers or developers, which is a shame.

 

I would contend that if Pure Music and Pure Vinyl were identical in price that most users would buy Pure Vinyl and just not use the vinyl recording and editing features. I also contend that the development and support costs of Pure Music to Channel D are not insignificant. Pure Vinyl already exists and the upgrade and support costs are a given for as long as Pure Vinyl exists.

 

So now we have Pure Vinyl and Pure Music, with both common and separate development, common and distinct bugs and perhaps sonic differences between the two, which IMO is not a good thing for the $150 that separates the two products. I realize that Pure Music is just beta but when I read posts that Pure Music sounds significantly worse than Pure Vinyl or that Pure Music sounds better than Pure Vinyl, or that devices that work with one don’t work with t he other, I see confusion for users and either a mess or denial for the developers.

 

And yes I have not tried Pure Music. I have an earlier version of Pure Vinyl 3 that runs on the Tiger OS. And at least for now, I have no intention of spending $169 for the OS upgrade and to only spend an additional $79 or $229 for another Channel D product.

 

 

[Paul Held]

So are we thinking ALAC processing is the problem (on my 2GB Mini) causing the distortion? Unusable unfortunately if that's the case......too bad

 

 

thx

 

[ted_b]

I am having no problems with memory playback, buffer sizes or anything like that. PM sounds wonderful!! It plays all resolutions very nicely (redbook to 24/192). I'm having the hiccup bug every day or so (once or twice...not a big deal but needs to be fixed) and am trying to make it hang on auto sample rate changes but other than day one (posted already) haven't had that issue again...although funny thing....having computer audio at your fingertips often causes one to skip around his/her collection a lot more than the spinning disc days....but with this latest PM installed I find myself listening to whole albums a lot.

 

[Paul R]

Wireless streaming is important to me, as we have a modest sized library of music (600 gigs). Even compressed with Apple lossless format, is still a lot of music to move around or sync to multiple computers.

 

Given that Pure Music appears to not like Apple Lossless files - or perhaps just likes AIFF files a lot more - converting to AIFF means a music library of more than a terabyte. That is an even larger problem to synchronize over multiple machines. I keep that data on one computer, so it can be backed up easily and with speed, and without an unwanted and unnecessary load on my net. (Okay, I did make an AIFF copy of the library to test James River on a PC, and a copy of that on a Mac to test Pure Music.)

 

I am willing to trade off a slight amount of perfection in sound for the capability to hear our music where and when I want to hear it anytime. Besides, I would much rather my daughter is listening to music than watching television, and with a few taps on an iPod Touch, I can let her listen to music in her room, the family room, the living room, or our bedroom.

 

YMMV, but I contend, what use is perfection if you have to be locked into one seat in one area to hear it?

 

Anyway, the question just begs to be ask - are these problems with Pure Music (I logged 9 incidents yesterday in 1.5 hours of play time) caused perhaps by the size of the library?

 

If I understand you, you are on a MacBook with 4gb playing AIFF files. How large is your library?

 

Also, have you tried ALAC files to see if it causes a problem? If not, would you mind converting a few songs to Apple Lossless and seeing how it handles them?

 

I don't think this is an issue with processor power - my Mac Pro has processor power to spare, and my MacBook (white) seems to as well, though ultimately, I want this to run off a Mini. I think the problems have some thing to do with the data format and/or the iTunes library size.

 

-Paul

 

 

[barrows]

My thoughts: I do not know what the cause of your problems are, I can only report on my experience with PM; at this point my opinion is that I am likely to buy it, but as I have many more days on my demo, I am going to continue testing before I decide.

My files are stored on an external disc, connected by Firewire, and are playing back via either Toslink or USB. Right now my Library is small, as I have not committed to computer based playback yet. But I do not see how the size of ones' library would matter?

In any case-if you are willing to accept the compromise inherent in wireless streaming, and using compressed file formats, I am not sure that player software like this is for you? Why not just use Itunes-sure it does not sound nearly as good as PM, but neither does playing compressed files, or streaming wirelessly.

My goal is maximum audio perfromance at reasonable price, and PM is working for me to achieve that goal in my system.

Have you optomized your computer setup for PM according to their recomendations? Like:

Disable disc journaling for your storage disc(s)

Disable spotlight

Keep PM as the front window

Make sure unused apps are closed

Unclick "display", "animate", and "metering"

 

"YMMV, but I contend, what use is perfection if you have to be locked into one seat in one area to hear it? "

 

From an audiophile perspective, yes, one must be locked into one seat to hear the best possible sound-this is just a fact of music reproduction-just like only a handful of seats in most concert halls are going to yield the best possible sound.

For the way you listen perhaps you are better off just sticking with Itunes?

 

 

 

[ted_b]

Personally, I've not seen/read/heard where PM and PV sound different...why would they..they are the same engine. They sound the same to me, except I never used memory playback in PV (before my trial expired) as Rob as working though issues at the time. To sell them for the same price (PM is a subset of PV) is illogical. If ChannelD can make some money on quantity of PM, then use that to improve both PV and PM that would be great. And to call PM crippled is also misinformation. It has (or published to have at release) ALL music player functions of PV....and it's free trial is full-function for 15 days, then another 7 on reinstall. The differences are not in the player, just in the add-on vinyl ripping capabilities.

 

[ted_b]

for audiozorro, not you. Duh! Edited my post.

 

And yes, these higher-end music players demand some attention to detail, such as sitting in the sweetspot and making sure you speakers and room are set up properly. i agree with Barrows that Paul ought to use iTunes for his multi-room/flexibility needs.

 

[Paul R]

Thanks for your thoughts and pointers. I have done those, and still experience a bit of an issue.

 

One thing, I think you assume that streaming music always represents a loss of quality, which simply isn't true. CD quality music does not inherently loose quality when streamed, and the vast majority of our music is ripped from CD's. Yes, there is a slight difference between AIFF and ALAC, but truth to be told, I have not yet met anyone who can reliably pick out the AIFF file in blind tests. They hear a difference, but they are unable to reliably tell which one is better.

 

By the way, I said "one seat in one area" - we have multiple areas with multiple seats. Different systems for different types of music.

 

We probably will stick with iTunes for most of our music, but there is some stuff that just sounds a lot better on one system or another.

 

Surely you do not have only one system for everything, do you?

 

-Paul

 

 

 

[rooob]

It sounds bloody good to me, I am using Intel Macbook with 2gb ram/Hiface playing AIFF rips. I have a few bugs like the pausing/restarting between tracks but overall I am very happy with the sound compared to iTunes on its own, if the minor bugs can be ironed out I shall be buying.

 

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

"...Yes, there is a slight difference between AIFF and ALAC, but truth to be told, I have not yet met anyone who can reliably pick out the AIFF file in blind tests..."

 

We recently ran blind tests using AIF and FLAC (among other so-called "lossless" formats). In our tests, with the reduced file and the original file played in sync, with the user able to switch at will but not knowing which was which, everyone in the room scored 100% in identifying the FLAC -- within the first few seconds of play.

 

All referred to the difference as a brightening and hardening of the sound. Not "night-and-day" to be sure but most certainly audible and for those who want the best they can get from their systems, appreciable enough to rule out these formats.

 

I've recently discussed this with a few colleagues and all had exactly the same experience.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

[Paul R]

That is COOL! Which one did they like the best? I can hear a difference between AIFF and FLAC, and I slightly prefer the AIFF. But then FLAC is compressed and AIFF is not.

 

Have you done any compares between WAV and AIFF or ALAC and FLAC? (Just curious.)

 

I'm at work and cannot listen to your album, but I suppose I will be buying it this evening. Do you plan to offer it for sale as downloads? I would really rather not have to find space for yet another physical disk.

 

Have to go ahead and buy Pure Music too. At $79 is not much of a risk, is it? They might get the bugs fixed.

 

Guess I don't qualify as an Audiophile though. I cannot really tell that much difference between iTunes playback and Pure Music, as long as bit rate is set correctly for the song playing. I like that Pure Music will switch the bit rate around when necessary.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bdiament]

Hi Paul,

 

"That is COOL! Which one did they like the best? I can hear a difference between AIFF and FLAC, and I slightly prefer the AIFF. But then FLAC is compressed and AIFF is not."

 

AIF (i.e. non-reduced, raw, linear PCM) was the clear winner in every comparison with reduced (i.e. non-linear, so-called "lossless") files.

 

 

"Have you done any compares between WAV and AIFF or ALAC and FLAC? (Just curious.)"

 

When I have run .aif and .wav files, I hear no difference between them.

 

After hearing the losses in the so-called "lossless" formats, I have not had any interest in comparing them. They're not for me.

 

 

"I'm at work and cannot listen to your album, but I suppose I will be buying it this evening. Do you plan to offer it for sale as downloads? I would really rather not have to find space for yet another physical disk."

 

We will begin offering files-on-disk with our next release some time later this year. Since all new recordings are done at 24/192, the customer will have the option at order time, to choose 24/192 aif, 24/192 wav, (and for those whose DACs only do 2x rates) 24/96 aif or 24/96 wav.

 

"Lift" (which was recorded at 24/96) is currently available in DVD-V format (on DVD-R) with 24/96 stereo audio (the only video being minimal menus). Some customers have used software to extract 24/96 audio files from the disks and in my comparisons of these with the masters, I found them to be perfect copies.

 

 

"Have to go ahead and buy Pure Music too. At $79 is not much of a risk, is it? They might get the bugs fixed.

The non-reduced, raw, linear PCM (i.e. AIF) was the clear winner in these comparisons."

 

I'm currently beta testing another app that makes use of the iTunes library. Might look into Pure Music too at some point. The field is young and I expect we'll be seeing a lot more development here.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

[barrows]

I have two systems: one for listening to music, in my main living area-this system is for music only, and sounds quite good. Then I have a lesser, 2 channel setup in my bedroom, that provides music, and TV/movies in there.

I do not stream audio to both systems, I believe in simplicity to get the best possible sonics, so my high end system is as simple as possible, with as little around that could possibly affect the performance.

"One thing, I think you assume that streaming music always represents a loss of quality, which simply isn't true. CD quality music does not inherently loose quality when streamed..."

I entirely disagree with this statement, in fact, just having an active wifi transmitter will hurt the performance of a really good sounding system. At my home there is no wifi, and there is no cell service, and very little RF interference in general-just turning on a cordless telephone will affect the sound of my system for the worse, as the RF broadcast gets into the music signal and hurts the high frequency reproduction. Of course, not everyone lives in a rural area like I do, so if one lives in an area swamped by cell signals, TV broadcasts, and all your neighbors' Wifi networks, short of building a dedicated listening room with copper foil wallpaper, you may not notice the difference of turning off and on your own Wifi network. Personally I agree with Charles Hansen, that having a low level microwave oven (wifi) operating 24/7 in ones' home is inviting all kinds of health problems over the long term as well. I get enough radiation exposure at work, and around town, and appreciate having my home clean of low level radiation fields.

Most audiophiles who have done comparisons of compressed file formats (including lossless compression) versus wav and aiff have found there to be sonic compromises with the compressed formats. As hard drive space is cheap these days, I play it safe and use aiff only.

 

[audiozorro]

I was just relaying info I had read on other websites like the Computer Audio Asylum. As reported by others there appears to be sonic differences and differences in some devices working or not. I believe as of this writing Pure Music does not have all the playback capabilities of Pure Vinyl and I don’t know what changes in programming Channel D will have to make the two equal.

 

I stand by the fact that when it comes to software, whether you sell 100 copies at $200 or 200 copies at $100 makes very little difference. But if you have to carve out, cripple or develop subset software limited from whatever you already have, it will cost real money for the new product and support. This is subtracting value from something that already exists in an attempt to lower cost to increase sales revenue.

 

I happen to think that it is better to sell the one product that already exists at a lower price than to carve out a new, lesser product for a lower price. Now if Channel D had started with Pure Music and they were adding value to create Pure Vinyl and charging more that would be one thing, but here we have the reverse. I’m not a longtime Mac user but my impression used to be that Mac hardware and software may cost more than the Windows stuff, but it works well. Unfortunately many of the posts I’ve read here and elsewhere on Amarra and Pure Vinyl sometimes seem to run counter to the belief that Mac software works well.

 

So yes, I’m not going to buy Pure Music now especially since I have a functional, though earlier version of Pure Vinyl 3. Time is on my side and we shall see where things stand say 1 year from now.

 

For the record (no pun intended) I am an advocate of Pure Vinyl and feel that it is sonically super to every other player I tried on my MacBook Pro. I have sometimes thought that Channel D's experience in capturing the sonic qualities of analog has worked to their advantage. So please take my criticism as constructive and if it seems premature it needs to be if only possibly have any effect before things are cast in stone. Were I to buy a new Mac today with Snow Leopard installed, I would probably buy the less expensive Pure Music assuming it is sonically equivalent and supports the same hardware as Pure Vinyl. I have no need for the vinyl recording features of Pure Vinyl.