Amarra 2.1 vs Pure Music 1.65a Sonic Comparison

[Lars]

Amarra 2.1 has a similar tonal balance when compared to Pure Music 1.65a. They both are well balanced top to bottom with no emphasis at the top, midrange or bass. The midrange on both is excellent with definition and focus that far surpasses that of iTunes. I listened to Amarra in standard play with iTunes and with the separate program Playlist. Playlist sounded much better to me especially with cache ( Memory Playback) enabled.

 

When I listened last evening at a low volume level, I had difficulty differentiating the two programs. Today after listening at normal levels, the sonic differences became quite apparent. Pure Music has a larger soundstage than Amarra. Pure Music’s stage is wider and deeper. The second difference I heard was in bass reproduction. Pure Music seems a little faster and better defined with more “pop” or dynamics in its bass reproduction.

 

I then tested Amarra’s gapless playback with high resolution files. After loading the files into Playlist, Amarra did a fine job playing these 96/24 and 88.2/24 classical files gapless. I heard only one pause between cuts in my listening session.

 

Sonic Studio has done a fine job with Amarra 2.1. It is the best sounding version of Amarra yet released with the benefit of memory playback.

 

 

[Christopher]

I use Amarra Mini (versions 2.1 & 2.0.1), Pure Music (version 1.65a) and iTunes (version 10).

 

For starters...

 

I should say that I’ve only been listening to Amarra MINI 2.1 for a few days (since its release). Plus, I have issues with Amarra MINI 2.1 (clicks & pops, etc.). This being said, I’ve listened to Amarra MINI 2.0.1 since July and have compared 2.0.1 with 2.1 closely over the past few days.

 

2.0.1 background...

 

For me, Amarra MINI 2.0.1 has a very slight echo or hall effect. Additional terms to describe this effect could be DSP, time delay, or reverb. However, something tells me that these are not the best/correct terms per se, so I will simply refer to my listening experiences as “Effect.”

 

In my experience, Amarra MINI 2.0.1 has a deeper and wider soundstage than previous versions of iTunes and earlier versions of Pure Music. Over time, the Effect became less and less appealing for me. Amarra MINI 2.0.1 was a nice match with my Benchmark DAC1 Pre, but became less appreciated after time with my Ayre QB-9.

 

2.1 first impressions...

 

When comparing Amarra MINI 2.0.1 with Amarra MINI 2.1 there is something different that I hear. The soundstage is still good, but the sense of reverb is greatly reduced.

 

Instead of Effect, I hear increased “richness” or “fullness” particularly in low-end frequencies. Granted, I’m using two subs (one for left channel and another for right channel). Each sub has a crossover set @ 60Hz with almost the lowest gain setting. I’m currently wondering if Amarra MINI 2.1 increases the bass to compensate for less Effect (just thinking out loud here).

 

Amarra & Pure Music comparison...

 

When comparing Amarra MINI 2.1 with Pure Music 1.65a I again hear something different. For me, Pure Music has less richness, but it may have better focus. I’d like to compare more, but initial listening seems to suggest that Pure Music 1.65a delivers vocals that are easier to pinpoint and center seems more focused than Amarra MINI 2.1.

 

For me, Amarra MINI 2.1 sounds fuller and has more “presence” than Pure Music 1.65a. The unanswered questions for me are (a) what was recorded and (b) what is more musically accurate? Frankly, I have no idea. Since I was not in the recording studio, I have no idea what the proverbial “mic feed” sounds like (respectful nod to Barry).

 

I can say this...

 

I like Pure Music 1.65a and, in my opinion, it is an excellent player. I am tempted to describe it as well balanced with good focus and neutral sounding.

 

I also think Amarra MINI 2.1 is an excellent player and, for me, it is an improvement over Amarra MINI 2.0.1 (even though there are some quirks that cause pops and skips with sample rate changes). I trust Amarra will troubleshoot issues associated with the new release expeditiously.

 

This may sound shocking, but I also think iTunes 10 has changed and it also sounds very respectable. For me, iTunes 10 does a good job on its own.

 

In sum for now...

 

Hopefully players continue to evolve and I’m delighted to have choices. I think both Pure Music 1.65a and Amarra MINI 2.1 are excellent. I’m not sure one is better than the other; it’s a matter of personal preference and DAC/system synergy. My opinion is that Amarra, Pure Music and iTunes all sound different, and it’s really up to the listener to decide what they prefer.

 

For me, iTunes 10 sounds better than any previous release of iTunes and I think it’s a viable option for good playback.

 

At the moment, my player of choice is Pure Music 1.65a.

 

The fun and welcome opportunity is to change my mind with more listening and more options.

 

Just for the record, everything here is a good-faith attempt to share my personal experiences and opinions. You may rightfully disagree based on your experiences. In the end, I trust my ears and so should you : )

 

Best regards,

Chris

 

 

 

[Lars]

I'm with you Chris. I think its great that we post our honest impressions that will hopefully lead to improvements in the music programs. Amarra 2.1 is the best Amarra for me. A fine program, but not perfect. I will continue to support both Sonic Studio and Channel D with my business even though my present sonic preference is for Pure Music.

 

What I think is not acceptable is the behavior of one of Sonic Studio's retailers over at Audio Asylum. For him to discredit Wilson Speakers, Stereophile, and the audio press in general, to get back at me, does not serve the mission of Sonic Studio.

 

[ted_b]

serving (Amarra dealer dissing other players....DUH!) and childish. It's one of the main reasons I spend little time over there.

 

I'm still tracking with you. PM seems overall a tad wider and deeper in soundstage, but Amarra 2.1 playlist option (i.e minimalist, detached iTunes) is a huge step forward for Amarra. Both programs, IMO, beat the free players...as well they should I guess, and I also will be supporting both Channel D and Sonic. I won't however, be purchasing support services......

 

[Jim Smith]

What I think is not acceptable is the behavior of one of Sonic Studio's retailers over at Audio Asylum. For him to discredit Wilson Speakers, Stereophile, and the audio press in general, to get back at me, does not serve the mission of Sonic Studio.

 

If there's such a thing as PR wars, Sonic Studio will lose with that sort of help.

 

It often gets cleared up/out at AA, but not before some damage has been done.

 

 

[PierreDLC]

CA members are focusing on Amarra and PureMusic but barely mention/support this italian playback software called AVS 3D.

 

Any reason ?

 

[Guest klemi]

Hallo,

 

Can someone give me an answer, that

 

1) pure music have the feature as Amarra "Automatic sample rate adjustment"?

2) pure music can play native flac-files?

Thank you very much

 

klemi

 

[Lars]

klemi,

 

Pure Music does handle audtomatic sample rate adjustment. Flac support is coming in the new major release this month.

 

[abolit]

I got a chance to listen to itune with amarra 2.1 and without.

Well, during the test I noticed that iTune with Amarra reduced the sound stage but "polished" some details whereas iTune alone sounded more refined. Not so excited so far.