Amarra 2.1 Released!

[GoldenEar]

Yes, Amarra 2.1 sounds different. But is it really better? My impression is that the sound is smoother, but the soundstage has become smaller.

 

I used to use Amarra 2.0.1 in playlist-mode which was very comfortable: select songs in iTunes, hit the '+'-Button and play. Now I have to clear the old playlist first, then open the 'add songs to playlist menu' and then click on 'load songs from iTunes'. If I try to use the keyboard shortcut, Amarra dies unexpectedly. Not really an improvement :-(

 

I also had issues with playing back FLACs directly. All tracks stopped somewhere in the middle and skipped to the beginning of the next track.

 

I'm quite disappointed. In my system 2.0.1 gave a perfect sound. I would have loved to see a 2.1 with the very same sound and an improved user interface, stability and the possibility to control it via iPhone/iPod/iPad. I think all of us that use a headless system for playback would appreciate that.

 

Kay

 

[thequietman]

For me 2.1 is the best yet. Depth is superb. Rich textured sound.

Using cache and selecting tracks from iTunes.

 

 

[rsorren1]

Here is my experience thus far with Amarra 2.1. The sound I am getting with Amarra 2.1 is excellent. I am using a MacBook Pro 15", i7 core, 4GB, 500MB, library stored on internal hard disk. OS/X 10.6.5. I use firewire out to a Weiss INT202. S/PDIF to an Esoteric D03 DAC. Audio Research REF3, REF210, Wilson WP/8. I have played both "redbook" ALAC files and 96/24 AIFF files (converted from FLAC) downloaded from HDTracks. I am using iTunes GUI because the PLAYLIST/Tracks feature of 2.1 is really filled with bugs. I have seen the following problems and would like to know if anyone else has experienced these:

1. when playing a playlist from iTunes (say one compiled by Genius), using cache feature, end of song ends abruptly and next song on playlist begins. Last three or four seconds is cut off

2. If you pause a track midway (my phone rang while I was listening) and try to re-start the track, no audio from Amarra. This happens whether you pause/re-start from the Amarra controls window or iTunes

3. After playing a 96/24 AIFF file, cache enabled, EQ enabled, if you select a 44.1/16, no audio. I have to shutdown Amarra and bring it back up

 

I too would echo the request to save the "state" of cache (enabled or not) so that Amarra starts the next time in the same state that you last had.

RSORREN1

 

[Jim Smith]

Re the cache when using iTtunes for the library, doesn't leaving iTunes in ghost mode negate the whole Memory Play advantage?

 

Or is the memory play not so important?

 

I confess to liking it in PM, but don't know if Amarra benfits from it to the same extent.

 

If you can't use iTunes for the library and enjoy the memory play benefits, and you have thousands of tunes, what's the best course?

 

 

 

 

 

[Lars]

When Amarra is using Cache-Memory Play in iTunes interaction mode, iTunes is still playing the file, with the volume muted in the background.

 

I think you can only can get "true" memory play in Amarra by NOT using the iTunes UI. This can be a disadvantage for the user, especially a user with thousands of tracks or more, for which iTunes is a much more suitable means of navigation than playlist management.

 

Folks from Sonic, please correct me if I'm wrong. Just speculating here.

 

[iamoneagain]

I think you are still getting true memory play. It loads the track into cache and plays the file from that. Even though iTunes is running, it's muted. Not sure why it even really needs to still play the file in iTunes other than timing to load next track? Could be reason for sound glitches.

 

[bottlerocket]

Guess emphasized. I'd think Itunes is playing in the background, but only to keep things in sync between the controls in Itunes and Amarra. Amarra is playing in parallel and that is what you hear, and it is doing some very different things, primarily loading files fully to memory prior to playback, and then getting back in sync with where Itunes is.

 

I can only guess there is no way to fully shut down the playback controls of Itunes. So to work around this, they've got a lot of code to mirror the Itunes playback. Since they do different tasks in parallel, there is lots of room for error.

 

Ideally, they'd be able to just disable the volume and playback controls in Itunes, but let the user choose tracks in Itunes and then click the play button in Amarra. The problem I think they have is that they can't control whether the user will choose to play from Itunes or Amarra and they've attempted to make either work.

 

AW gets around this by design choice, by making you load a playlist from Itunes or directly from Finder. Once that is done, they are fully independent from Itunes. Amarra also attempts to offer this option, but their UI is not good for this, where AW's was designed for this. Also Amarra's "QA department" apparently did not spend a lot of time testing this option.

 

 

[Jim Smith]

I can only guess there is no way to fully shut down the playback controls of Itunes. So to work around this, they've got a lot of code to mirror the Itunes playback. Since they do different tasks in parallel, there is lots of room for error.

 

But wouldn't all of that Tunes coding have to go into the memory, if they are playing from it?

 

Guess Sonic Studio should chime in here. I'm probably overlooking the obvious.

 

 

[audiozorro]

When I first evaluated Amarra, I would often switch back and forth between Amarra and iTunes in order to compare the sonic differences between the two. Needless to say the programs sometimes got confused and both would play at the same time, with one lagging behind the other by a few seconds. Despite the fact that some people prefer the sound of Amarra, I just do not see how Amarra being so dependent and intertwined with iTunes could ever be an optimum arrangement.

 

I'm not sure if Pure Music works in a similar manner but the latest version of Pure Music works 500% better than when I last evaluated Pure Vinyl. Back then Pure Vinyl was often slow and non-responsive. Now I see no such problems. Back then I preferred Pure Vinyl to Amarra. Speaking of Pure Vinyl, I read an interesting post from a highly respected audiophile who suggested why vinyl sounds better to many audiophiles than digital. He suggested it is because of the RIAA equalization that can sometimes sound better in some ways than other forms of analog or live events. If this is true then I suspect that Pure Music, with their long experience with Pure Vinyl may have an advantage for superior sonics.

 

Of course I believe that AyreWave and Audirvana have a different advantage for superior sonics since those programs are simpler and not dependent on iTunes. When some readers complain about occasional clicking problems or other glitches I often believe this is due to computer processes that are conflicting with each other as they share resources or poll the computer for any inputs. That is why I believe a program like cMP that shuts down many Windows processes is very important for achieving ultimate sonics. I believe that a stripped down OS that never starts or doesn't have any unnecessary processes for just computer audio would be inherently better.

 

Of course the proof is in the pudding and like other things in life that are challenged, a handicapped often does not prevent a winner.

 

[proftournesol]

I'm using Amarra mini on my new i7 17" MBP (happy man). Sound is good, especially in playlist mode. It would be nice to be able to do this with Amarra mini invisible (as really the mini window takes up screen space and offers nothing in return. I am getting some short playback gaps, both with 44.1 and 96k files.

 

[Opusover21]

The remote control doesn't work either in playlist or cache mode...it works normally for skipping tracks but not in either if those modes...

 

[proftournesol]

Rowmote Pro remote works perfectly in playlist mode in Amarra mini

 

[Erwin S]

I did no thorough AB between playing via iTunes vs Playlist+Cache but I don't think I need to in order to confirm that the latter sounds superior. I am enjoying Elbow's Cast Of Thousands album in 16/44.1 format right now and it's bloody marvelous. Sounds 3D.

 

So far the good news. Like others, I had some hickups where there just was no sound or Amarra telling me it could not add some of the selected files in the playlist. This was with Apple Lossless format, never with AIFF, strangely (I used to rip CD's using iTunes to Apple Lossless, but now I am using XLD to AIFF, so both formats are present)

 

Like someone else wrote, I don't like the interface's look. Never did. Reminds me of Windows 95. Very un-Apple-like. You can say much about Apple, but even fools like me can use it without having to ask someone else or reed the manual. The added features of Amarra 2.1 also add to the confusion. I don't need options every time I select an album. I just want the best sound and flawless use all the time.

 

A small disadvantage with not using iTunes for playback is that there's no counter. I like to know how many times a track has been played and how long it has been since the last playback. Not a biggie, just something from iTunes I liked.

 

[Opusover21]

I'm not talking about rowmote...I'm referring to the remote in amarra...in extras?

 

[Lars]

"Re the cache when using iTtunes for the library, doesn't leaving iTunes in ghost mode negate the whole Memory Play advantage?"

 

 

When iTunes is playing the file, it doesn't matter if iTunes is muted or not: iTunes is still accessing the disk.

 

Can't have it both ways. You either have memory play with no disk access happening, or you don't (have memory play).

 

 

[bottlerocket]

Memory play (Cache button enabled) is independent of Itunes mode versus playlist mode. When I refer to Itunes mode, I mean the playlist button is turned off and you are playing back from Itunes through Amarra. When I refer to Playlist mode, I mean the playlist button is enabled.

 

You can enable Itunes mode and Cache mode and Amarra will not perform disk IO (for reading and buffering the track data) during playback.

 

So with 2.1 you can have it both ways. You get memory play by pushing the Cache button. This does the same thing whether you are playing back from a Playlist or playing back via ITunes.

 

The only difference between Itunes mode and Playlist mode is that Itunes mode must use a little more of the Itunes application during playback as you'll see the CPU percentage used by Itunes is a fraction higher (and Amarra's use of the CPU is a fraction lower)

 

As for memory playback (Cache button enabled), you will see the same 0 disk reads during playback regardless of whether your are using Itunes mode or Playlist mode.

 

To me this means Playlist mode is less useful than it was in 2.0.1. Which is fine, because it adds more steps to load tracks and it's UI is goofy. It is not a good plan to use menu drop downs to list data. The only potential sonic benefit you get from Playlist mode is lower CPU usage and this is very questionable as our CPU's these days are more than capable of doing two things at once.

 

[Lars]

I am only talking about the standard playback without Playlist. If Cache is selected, is the "ghost" iTunes running also using Memory Playback? How can this happen since iTunes cannot run in memory playback?

 

Most of us prefer the sound of Playlist. And yes, I agree, it is not user friendly.

 

Sonic will probably straighten me out on this one, but it does beg the question.

 

[bottlerocket]

"If Cache is selected, is the "ghost" iTunes running also using Memory Playback?" My guess is No.

 

Try using Activity Monitor and watching the disk reads. With Cache mode even with the Itunes ghost running, the only disk read is at the start of the track. With Cache mode off, you get regular reads during the track which I assume are Amarra rebuffering during the track. This seems to point to the Itunes ghost not doing any disk I/O at all regardless. Pure speculation on my part. If this was open source, we could tell for sure.

 

 

[Guest Claude]

Today I compared 2.0 and 2.1. With me was my brother (a recording engineer).

First of I played 2.1. (Cache, Playlistmode, Itunes not running) His first comment: "What did you change? Sounds very relaxed." After listening to 2.1 for a week, this is exactly how I feel about 2.1. The sound is very relaxing. I never get tired of listening.

Next comment: "Somehow I have the feeling your system had more air, the last time I listened to it." I have the same impression. With all music I have the impression, that the recording venue is transported into my room. OK with small ensembles, but not with large scale philharmonic music.

Next comment (Holly Cole - Heatwave): "The last time I heard this on your system it blew me away. This time it just sounds excellent." I have the same feeling with various kinds of music. The music is just not as involving as it used to be.

So we switched to 2.0 and heard the same songs (1. Lyle Mays - Bill Evans (wonderful piece of music!!!). What a difference: the piano is no longer a piano, but a steinway (I sure hope it is one, would be quite embarrassing, if I was wrong). After the impact of the hammer, you not only hear string, wood but also that a hammer hits a string. Sounds much more natural I wish my english was better, but I hope you understand where I am heading. Maybe it is sharper transients.

The soundstage is wider, deeper and higher with 2.0. On Bill Evans you can clearly hear the recording venue. I cannot hear as deep into it with 2.1.

Also the hihats sound much more natural with 2.0. More resonance. They almost sizzle.

With 2.1 it is like there is blackness around instruments. The decay does not expand into the whole recording venue. Some said on this thread that Amarra does that reverb thing. I would say, that it reproduces what there is or should be (I know I wasnt there).

So for now I prefer Version 2.0. and for my brother it was a no brainer: 2.0 sounds much better - at least in this system with the music we listened to.

 

I am interested, if someone else has the same impressions.

Claudius

 

 

[iamoneagain]

Yeah, I think playlist mode was a workaround to get gapless playback. They should try to figure out what Pure Music did. Looking at iTunes gapless setting and providing gapless with no playlist. I also think having a Hog mode would stop any ghost sounds. You'll notice in Pure Music, when iTunes is playing, you don't see the little "speaker on" symbol like you do with Amarra. Now I'd probably switch to Pure Music if I enjoyed their sound as much but it's not as rich, smooth, or as textured as Amarra.

 

The interface isn't the best looking but if the Mini version worked the way it should, you should never have to look at it. They need to get gapless to work without a playlist. Have cache mode preset. And also have tracks preload before next one ends. And obviously have it pause and start back up where you left off. I also liked Ayrewave's fade-in when you started a track back up, You weren't jolted by the music. I'm not saying to copy all these features exactly, but they are nice and I think Amarra's only advantage right now is the sound engine itself.

 

Seems the goal is to have iTunes as the front end and not have to deal with the Amarra backend after the original setup.

 

[iamoneagain]

Oh and as far as sound, I'm enjoying 2.1 in cache mode better than 2.0. I actually switched to Ayrewave for a while because I felt it had more texture. If you like a very clean sound and great dynamics, Pure Music might be best. But for me it sounds too clean. Not sure which is more accurate, but I really like what 2.1 is doing. My setup is a highend headphone system (AT L3000/DHA3000), so could just a synergy thing. But playback preferences could depend on system setups and personal taste.

 

[Lars]

Bottlerocket,

 

I see what you mean with Amarra in standard playback with Cache selected. I see no disk activity during playback of a single selection.

 

 

 

[f1eng]

I just downloaded v 2.1 and the first listening in underwhelming. It sounds nice, but has not the spaciousness or air of 2.0.

I am disappointed so far.

OTOH the worst thing about these computer players is the chopping off of the first 2 to 20 seconds of each track, presumably whilst loading them into memory. To release software that does not resolve this is worse than stupid IMO.

In 2.0 the only way to get real gapless play is to use playlist mode, which precludes my using my headless mac mini system as planned, ie music navigated by remote on my iPad.

Even if the SQ was 40 billion times better than iTunes, magnificently screwing up the transition from 1 movement of a Symphony to the next outweighs it!

I will re-listen to v2.0 later to see if I get the air and stereo back...

At the moment it is more convenient for me to listen to straight iTunes, or, even more so, to play the CD :-(

Frank

 

[f1eng]

Yup, on my system going back to 2.0 brought back the air and stereo depth which ebbed away with 2.1.

I have always liked a neutral rather than the traditional UK/USA downtilted balance, which is what 2.1 seems to give.

Just now there is nothing in 2.1 which resolves the missing beginning of tracks which irritates me so much in 2.0 and the SQ is -very- definitely not an improvement to these ears.

I would go as far as to say that if Amarra had sounded like v2.1 does now when Keith let me have a demo, I wouldn't have spent a small fortune on it.

 

[Purite Audio]

Frank really? Is that using playlist and memory play?

Keith.