Why Amarra etc?

[Beamerman]

Probably a silly question but I can't seem to find a decent answer, hopefully some of you can help me out.

 

I'm using iTunes on a Mac Mini and was wondering why one would need add-on software like Amarra? An audiophile wants bitperfect data, which iTunes delivers what's there to enhance?

 

Only advantage I can think of is the automatic bitrate selection, this is something I have to do myself in the 'audio MIDI setup' when using only iTunes. But is there more? Sonic improvement?

 

Any advice is welcome!

Rene

 

 

Mac Mini -> HiFace -> MF TriVista SACD (used as DAC) -> AR SP9 -> Nakamichi PA7 (by Nelson Pass) -> B&W 801's

 

[CoolMilo]

In my opinion, there is a huge sonic improvement with Amarra, Pure Music, etc. beyond the convenience of automatic bitrate switching. The are many other features that these 3rd party programs offer that are missing from iTunes.

 

Why don't you download the full feature demo versions of the programs and test for yourself?

 

[Beamerman]

I understand that there are features that iTunes doesn't offer (e.g. FLAC), what I don't understand is how these programs improve bitperfect audio.

 

The website states things like 'Experience a level of detail and spaciousness from instruments and vocals that will blow you away!', this makes me believe that it will alter the original bitstream with effects etc.

 

Are these programs in the same league as the good old 'equalizer' and 'loudness button' for example?

 

I will try the demo's, thats a good tip.

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Some people hear great differences, other people, even people with very very good audio experience, hear no difference.

 

The only way to know is to demo them. I suggest demoing:

 

Amarra

Pure Music

Decibel

Fidelia

Audivarna

BitPerfect

and compare each against iTunes.

 

-Paul

 

 

[darascal]

@Beamerman,

 

I think the significant question is how do these programs improve sound quality, if in fact they do. From a pragmatic point-of-view, improved sound quality is what matters.

 

And how these programs improve sound quality - if they do - is a matter of considerable dispute. There a numerous threads and portions of thread here that argue this point ad nauseum (great nauseum!).

 

There seems to be quite broad - though not unanimous - agreement that these players do, in fact, improve sound quality.

 

Rascal

 

[crisnee]

Let me just answer (in short) one of your questions that hasn't been answered here.

 

The change in sound for better? (if there is) has nothing to do with eq. and the like. The audio is still bit perfect. In general the claim with computer audio is that "noise," in the system caused one/both by hardware and software is what changes the sound.

 

This could be things like power supply, hdd noise, playback from memory, noise created by wireless--even wireless mice and keyboards. Also OS related things re memory access, other stuff running concurrently with the player, etc. etc. Folks even claim to hear differences in lossless compressed audio files. So the possibilities are almost infinite.

 

Happy studying. Or you could just ignore all this if you like what you hear now.

 

-Chris

 

[SteveChicago]

I've tried some, but not all, of the mentioned software players (Amarra I have not tried) ... FWIW, in my system I did not notice a significant difference vs. iTunes with rips in AIFF

 

[mayhem13]

Your question is a good one, but the only answers you'll get here will be purely subjective as to it sounding 'better'? Truthfully, subjective responses are like tastes.....not quantifiable and therefore no measure of performance or value. If the sellers of these front ends marketed it as sounding 'different' (more appropriate) instead of better, sales would be pretty poor if not worse. I'll take unaltered bit perfect data any day of the week.

 

 

[Beamerman]

Thank you all for the replies.

 

I'm mostly interested in the technical side of this, not so much the subjective (and completely not interested in 'black magic'). When I use something in my audio system I like to know (and understand if possible) the underlying principal behind it. With these add-on programs this is not yet the case.

 

So it does not alter the bitperfect data stream but sounds better. I guess the difference must be in time then, being jitter.

 

I can for example imagine that the add-on SW takes control over the processes running on the cpu and thereby controlling/reducing the load of the system with results in cleaner supplies and thus less noise/jitter.

 

Since my HiFace USB->spdif interface is assynchronous this should however not affect my sound... ok I'll stop being boring and try the demo's

 

Again thanks for your input.

Rene

 

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

The simple answer "Why Amarra?" is two fold...

 

First answer is an absolute: there is some functionality provided by Amarra and other software which is missing from iTunes. Chief amongst the missing functionality is the ability to output different sampling rates transparently and bi-perfectly. ie with iTunes you select (via Audio Midi) the sample rate you want all the music output at (e.g. 24bit 96kHz) - this is fine when you are playing native files but iTunes has to use its sample rate converted for playing other files (e.g. Your CD rips which are 16bit 44.1kHz). Amarra and other software avoid this by changing the output sample rate to match the file.

 

Second is a subjective matter: many people consider the sound quality to be improved using Amarra (and other software). The file is still played but perfectly (without an EQ) but the sound varies. The reasons that the SQ varies is only speculated on...

 

Because this second answer is subjective you need to demo the software and make your own decision.

 

Eloise

 

[henry]

Paul, how are these different from exact audio? thanks

 

[Mark Powell]

I'm on Windows, not a Mac. I have tried lots of these players and don't hear any difference at all.

 

So I use one that has the user interface I like most and that automatically switches to the sample rate of the original file, without me having to do anything.

 

Running at the original sample rate, rather than doing any kind of conversion is, I believe, important. And if, as on Apple iTunes and some Windows players you have to dive in and do it manually you won't always bother, so you will lose some quality. If your DAC has sample rate lights it is nice to see it switch all by itself. These lights are also useful to see if you have set it all up correctly.

 

A warning about Amarra. Many say it gives good sound quality. A whole lot do not disagree with that but say it is so unreliable and erratic that they want their money back (and it is very expensive). See other threads about the complaints. I cannot use it on Windows so have no opinion.

 

[Paul R]

Sorry, I don't use Exact Audio - I thought it was more a sound editor than an player.

 

In any event, the only difference between the named programs, is that they will, at least to some people, sound different.

 

As Mark pointed out, a lot of folks things Amarra sounds really really good. I do in fact, and prefer it over many other players. But it is buggy and when those pesky bugs present themselves, makes it a trial and tribulation to listen to music, instead of the soul restoring joy that it should be.

 

-Paul

 

 

[SteveChicago]

Mark: I have a MAC Mini. I've tried several software players (admittedly not Amarra). The features, such as auto SR switching, are great; but, like you I hear no SQ benefit over iTunes.

 

Perhaps it's system specific; perhaps room / acoustics specific; perhaps subjective. I don't know.

 

Bottom line for my is: if it sounds better, do it.

 

[med_designer]

It is interesting how these various players present the audio to the listener and how we all seem to have our favorites. I have not listened to them all but have spend time with both Pure Music and Amarra.

 

One of the things I believe Amarra is doing is bypassing CoreAudio which is a foundation service for audio playback on the Mac. For example, certain types of audio processing functions (sample rate conversions, equalizer settings and so on) would make use of CoreAudio. I am pretty sure Amarra is doing all of this in their own code and not making use of this built in service. This would make sense to me in that Amarra is part of Sonic Studio which was Sonic Solutions when I used their products professionally in CD Mastering in the mid and late 90s. During that time, we had add in boards for our Mac host computer that allowed us to make use of the Sonic EQ functions. This board handled all the DSP. With the much more powerful chips we have in todays computers these types of boards are not always necessary. In fact, the EQ feature in Amarra looks and acts very similar to what we had when I used it in mastering every day.

 

When we listened to the various solutions on my system, I liked Amarra the best and some of my friends liked Pure Music better on the same material. So it might not be which one is the best, but which one gives you the results you are looking for - if any. Where I think these players offer some real benefit is memory play. The ability to load an entire album of uncompressed music into RAM and then play the audio to your favorite DAC appears to be of great benefit. In fact RAM based playback systems might be our best option.

 

My main complaint with these add-on software options is the lack of seamless integration into the playback chain. There always seems to be issues of one form or another. Perhaps the software designers could create a piece of software that does not have an application, but a system preference pane. You would access the software settings via the preference pane to configure the software and set wether it is enabled or disabled. When enabled these systems would only use iTunes to select the files to play, the software would handle all playback and audio processing. Earlier I mentioned the I thought Amarra bypasses CoreAudio. iI may do this only when using it’s playback interface, and not when selecting the tracks via the iTunes interface.

 

I think one of the limitations the developers are facing is the rules they must adhere to with regards to CoreAudio and iTunes. There may not currently be a way to get around some of the issues that would end up making a better product.

 

 

 

[scobek]

they're using your computer's resources a bit more efficiently for audiophile ends (Memory Play, HOG mode etc) as well as providing ABS and other functionality.

 

PureMusic will also let you use some of the equalizers, filters and other audio units which come with Garageband (and Logic if you've upgraded), which is sometimes fun on truly bad rock recordings.

 

But let's face it, iTunes delivers 95% of what you need. Everything else is really just a bit of fluff.

 

Amarra, however, is truly the work of the devil. Avoid. Use that money to support your local orchestra or chamber ensemble. Take piano lessons. Buy a sitar. Learn to cook. Drink better wine. Gamble more. Donate to Radiolab. Donate to the poor. Anything, anything other than Amarra.

 

[Jud]

Since my HiFace USB->spdif interface is assynchronous this should however not affect my sound

 

The author of one of the players has written a white paper on how a player can improve sound in the context of bit perfect reproduction and an asynchronous USB interface. You of course may choose to credit the technical explanation or not, but anyway the author has given one:

 

http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/large_image/MAC%20OSX%20audio%20players%20&%20Integer%20Mode.pdf

 

[earflappin]

Mark: Like Steve, I also have a MAC Mini. I have a pretty resolving system, used to be a musician and listen to a lot of live music. So I'd like to think I know how live music should sound. When I do listening tests I use unamplified acoustic music as it is much easier for me to evaluate overall coherency. I particularly like to listen to piano as it is very difficult for the overall playback chain to get that right.

 

Over a period of several months I've tried several software players also including most of the OS X players. Initially, while I felt I heard improvements from some of them, I have to admit I have gone back to stock iTunes and prefer it. Now then, if you want the best from iTunes you need to set the Midi settings to match your source file otherwise your music will go through a SRC (sample rate converter) and I definitely hear a degradation of SQ when I use Apple's SRC. For many, this is just too much of a hassle and this auto switch feature is a definite plus over iTunes.

 

There is a trap many audiophiles fall into IMHO (me included!) and that is when we hear something different our initial reaction in many cases is to prefer it. Couple that with issues like system imbalances where your HF may be too hot and so when you hear a cable that rolls off the HF it sounds "better". Generally, and counter intuitively, when I hear something that draws attention to itself I have trained myself to question it and not embrace it, because I have found in most cases what I was hearing was not better, just different.

 

Bottom line, I encourage you to establish a solid baseline by listening, for example, to stock iTunes for several days. Then try one of these players for a while and then go back. Take your time and trust your ears. Ultimately it is about what you prefer, not what is more accurate. We are all wired differently. For me, my reference is always live music and I know what that should sound like.

 

Good listening.

 

[Mark Powell]

I have found an odd thing. If I make a change I am often unable to decide whether it is worse, better, or just different.

 

So I leave it for a week. Then I go back to as it was before. Which Of the above alternatives is actually true seems to become far more obvious.

 

[nemick]

I tried the 15 day trial of Pure Music in my system and I couldn't really tell much difference in sound quality. This may very well be as a result of me not having a system good enough to effectively demonstrate the differences, though. That said, and if my assumption is correct, I would rather put the cost of PM or any other play back program towards a hardware improvement in my system.

I do think that PM provides some benefits that regular iTunes does not, such as memory play and the ability to play FLAC files, but these benefits are currently wasted on my system.

I do not pretend to understand why any of these playback programs are supposed to make a difference, unless there is something in the decompressing or other algorithms being used, but there are a great many people who do claim to hear differences. I suppose I am of the opinion that these programs may be something that I will revisit at a later date when my budget is exhausted on other, more tangible equipment.

 

[Priaptor]

nail on the proverbial head. In my old days as a high end audio dealer I had a large sample size of listeners and almost all initially embraced "different sounding" as better.

 

You are so right on that. Even now I have to stop myself from falling into that trap.

 

[DM]

I hope this tech paper from AMR helps:

 

 

Beyond bit-perfect: The importance of the Player Software And MAC OS X Playback Integer Mode

http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/html/dp777_tech-papers_OSX-Integermode.html

 

[crisnee]

It seems to me that a rather large percentage of posters in this thread (and others) notice only slight or no differences when it comes to software players (and other things). On top of that, the differences are rarely described clearly, if at all.

 

I'm not complaining about this by the way (although it would be interesting to read clear explanations of differences). I am wondering if the folks who hear these changes, ostensibly for the better, think they would notice the difference if someone surreptiously changed their system back to its original state.

 

I realize this is a general question not aimed at anyone in particular, but I think it might be an interesting way to think about whether to invest in one's new addition to the system.

 

These changes that people describe (or don't describe) seem so small that I might have a hard time deciding that they are due to the changes made rather than the environment, my mood, time of day, etc.--because I know that I can attribute rather pronounced changes to these.

 

-Chris