Pure Music Review at 6 Moons

[Lars]

Recent review of Pure Music posted at 6 Moons:

 

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/puremusic2/1.html

 

 

 

[kaka]

He says he has Amarra 2.1, and then proceeds to say Amarra plays with iTunes running and doesn't support memory play.

 

Well no, it can run from memory without iTunes now. And it sounds better that way.

 

I've got both of these products and Amarra sounds better in my system, when it is used to it's max.

 

 

 

[Lars]

kaka,

 

I have been curious why these music programs sound so different to all of us. Computer, dac, associated equipment, etc.?

 

Please tell us what you prefer about the sound of Amarra. I also own both.

 

Thanks

 

[kaka]

I have been curious why these music programs sound so different to all of us

 

Wouldn't we all like to know that

 

I've just fired up some test tracks in both players - one that does it for me is a 24/192 High Definition Tape Transfer violin piece played by Daniel Shafran. I am far more convinced by the violin I am hearing via Amarra

 

Some of my favourite rock test tracks sound different but good via both products (Tin Pan Alley - Stevie Ray Vaughan, Dazed and Confused - Led Zepp, Europa - Santana) but quite what they should sound like is less certain than the violin.

 

 

[Lars]

kaka,

 

I have listened to the MH ULN-8 on my system, so I think I understand why you like the violin better with Amarra.

 

By the way, I liked the MH dac very much.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Steve

 

[dantheman]

I used to like PM, and hate Amarra 1.2 in my system. After Pat at ART did some tweak on my DAC, now the Amarra 2.1 sounds much better than PM, simply more 3D, vocal is more real, I don't know why, could be that reduced jitter on DAC.

 

[Lars]

It's becoming clear to me that the "preferred" music program will be the one that compliments our dac,system,and sonic preferences. Reproduction of the soundstage can be of minor importance to some listeners and a big deal to others. I could go on and on about this topic.

 

We are in a great position these days as audiophiles. Programs like Amarra, Pure Music, and AyreWave have improved the sound of our systems significantly compared to what I was using 4 years ago.

 

Pure Music will be releasing their big update most likely this week. Support for native integer playback might just raise the bar again.

 

Steve

 

[kaka]

Quality of source makes quite a difference too

 

I've got 2 apple sources - one is a 4gb macbook, the other purpose built with 8 Gb, passive cooling (no fan), uprated power supply, solid state drive for the O/S, external drive for the music

 

The difference between the two is quite marked, using a firewire connection to the MH

 

When I was using the macbook -> Locus Nucleus -> Empirical Audio Offramp -> Altmann dac (or macbook -> Locus Nucleus -> Empirical Audio Overdrive) I preferred Pure Vinyl as it compensated for what happened elsewhere in those chains

 

[James1776]

Shouldn't it sound way better..it costs way more?

 

[dantheman]

I am glad that I have bought Amarra, it does cost way more, and it sounds way better than PM now in MY system! BTW, I also own PM.

 

[khollister]

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but after multiple comparisons between PM and Amarra in my system, PM clearly wins. Amarra (Mini is what I have been demoing since I have no material above 96kHz) sounds closed in and somewhat "dead" compared tp PM 1.65. Pure Music has a definite edge in the sense of "room" and air - things sound more alive and 3 dimensional. Using playlist mode in Amarra doesn't make a huge difference for me. I am NOT using oversampling in PM, but do have memory playback on as well as HOG mode. Soundstage is bigger in PM too.

 

I'm pleased with the result since I think the price of Amarra is ridiculous, so I am quite happy with preferring PM at $129 (which I purchased).

 

Frankly, Amarra doesn't sound much different from iTunes in my system with 16/44 content.

 

My system is Apogee Duet, Ray Samuelson HR-2 headphone amp, Sennheiser HD600's with Cardas cable and interconnects (Golden Cross). Maybe if I had something like a Benchmark DAC, silver cables and Grado headphones I would feel different, but Amarra just seems to strip the air and space from the music.

 

 

 

[SteveS1]

they are your findings. I felt the same about the previous version of Amarra 2.0 and have been using Pure Music 1.65a.

 

However, that has changed with Amarra (Mini) 2.1.1 which I think sounds great. I now look forward to the next release of PM to see what happens. But I won't be going for any irreversible changes that's for sure.

 

It is interesting to see such a wide variety of experience.

 

Happy New Year all.

 

Steve

 

 

 

[GoldenEar]

... Amarra in its present 2.1.1 version works very reliably and the sound is way better than PM. It's true, PM seems to provide a bigger and wider stage, but at the expense of "digital sound" and very sharp highs. This is my experience with PM 1.65a. OTOH, if the recording has a wide and deep soundstage, Amarra reproduces this very good. I don't want "additional space" created by the playback software. However, my experience is also that playback software is part of the complete playback chain and different chains may lead to different preferred softwares.

 

I've downloaded PM 1.7 this afternoon and found that there are intermittent clicks (not very loud, but annoying) during playback that I never noticed with PM 1.65a. Anyone can confirm this?

 

Happy new year!

Kay

 

 

[avi]

I haven't noticed any intermittent clicks with 1.7 so far.

 

Avi

 

[khollister]

I have been listening to Amarra Mini 2.1.1 and PM 1.7 again this morning with tracks from the Diana Krall "Quiet Nights" album (96/24 version from HDTracks). I think I am coming around to agree with Kay's comments. PM certainly sounds more open, but there is something a little off, which is apparent in the cymbals, for instance.

 

I also went back and forth between playlist mode and "iTunes mode". Unfortunately, I like playlist better - there goes easy iPad control thru the Remote app.

 

To say nothing of the cost of this thing (which I still think is ridiculous).

 

By the way, has anyone successfully decoupled iTunes and Amarra? Even when I deselect the preferences item to link starting/quitting Amarra & ITunes as well as deselecting the link button in the UI, I cannot stop iTunes without Amarra shutting down as well.

 

EDIT - Oh, and I take back the comment about iTunes sounding the same as Amarra - shouldn't have been posting comments and trying to do critical listening on New Years Eve (ahem) :-) I am listening to Alan Jackson's "Like Red On a Rose" and it is the most "musical" I have it sound on this rig - very "un-digital". Now, if that Woo Audio WA2 tube headphone amp that I ordered would just get here ...

 

[SteveS1]

using Finder. I can tell no difference between that and using Cache/iTunes mode which is handy because it enables use of 'Remote' as a full function iTouch/iPad remote control, just as I had with Pure Music. My finding is that 2.1.1 is significantly (as these things go) better than PM 1.65a - I haven't properly tried 1.7 yet beyond ensuring it works.

 

In short, Amarra 2.1.1 just seems to be that hoary old chestnut of more natural. I don't find any reduction in sound stage, but I do find it a little more precise. There isn't a hint of anything being over lit, the balance seems right. Very engaging. I haven't suddenly changed my view that PM1.65a sounds good - it does, but this is just better.

 

The longer I have listened the more I like it. I shall get to try PM 1.7 more fully later, but a quick comparison using an Anais Mitchell track this afternoon still has the Amarra preferred quite easily.

 

Steve

 

[JR_Audio]

Normally I involve myself only, when I can input some measurable, objective results. But here, I want to ask for more comparisons, between different playback software.

 

Amarra does sound good, without doubt, but comparing with Pure Music, Audirvana, AyreWave and Twilight, it has some sonic signature. When I set up my system, or used to listen to my system with Amarra, then I will be happy and no other player will have a chance against.

 

But when I also listen a bit longer to Audirvana and AyreWave, then at least I noticed, that Pure Music is more on the a similar side, as Audirvana, AyreWave and Twilight are. So coming from that direction, at least for me, Amarra has a sonic pleasant signature. Amarra does please and do better forgive errors in the recording or playback system.

 

I do not want to open an endless discussion, I only want to bring some light into sound impressions, that are different, where the listener is coming from an other side. So just listen and tune your system with AyreWave or Audirvana and then repeat your Amarra and Pure Music comparison.

 

But finally, any of the above mentioned players has his right and his good and weak points, and it is up the the individual person, what points are the ones, that counts the most for him. So there are reasons why someone choses Amarra, but there are also some reasons, why someone prefer any of the other four contenders.

 

Juergen

 

[Enicar]

So I wonder, what is it in iTunes-playback that is bad or wrong and has to "corrected" with Pure Music or Amarra.

E.g. if I only play 16/44.1 material, ALAC files.