[FB101]

His complete dismissal of iTunes (on a Mac, with a Firewire DAC) seems puzzling, don't you think?

On the other hand, it makes we want to install Windows on the Mac Mini and try out J River.

This review is biased in the sense that I have explored primarily hi-resolution playback from files downloaded from 2L, Linn and HD Tracks. In that case, playback for 24/192 and 24/96 FLac files, i-Tunes is plainly a pain in the rear-end. Had I focused on CD playback and 16/44 files, I-tunes is a far more acceptable solution but that was not the heart of my listening.

I sincerely hope that Apple tackles i-tunes seriously for the next generation making the need for a windows partition or Amarra irrelevant. I have been a PC guy for years, only recently back on Apple and I just wish I could do away with Windows altogether, the iMac being so superior to any PC I have ever owned - up to now it has not been possible short of spending $1000 on Amarra.

So it may be my frustration that transpires but had I found a way to switch completely to MAc I would have without hesitation.

[wilsynet]

Frederic,

You misrepresented the purpose of Amarra (it is not merely for switching between say 16/44.1 and 24/96), then you ridiculed it.  Despite several well respected people (Steve Nugent, Gordon Rankin) who have said it is better than anything on Windows, Mac or Unix, despite this, you chose to make fun of it without ostensibly any first hand experience.

It is rare to meet someone like you who can form such strong opinions without any experience or evidence.  I am looking forward to more reviews from you and 6moons of things you have never heard.

Wilson

[ltonkin]

Hi Frederic,

I have no interest in seeing you eat your hat, but I would like you to compare Amarra to your favorite Windows solution before you jump to the conclusion that it is a scam and the price completely unjustified. Sonic Studio is a company and they do have to pay their employees to develop and improve their products. Believe me, in my day job I use many "free" unix/linux applications, and it's no fun waiting for one person to develop/fix bugs/add features/etc. in their free time.

Again, the offer is out to prove me wrong.

You need to listen for yourself to prove you wrong, nobody can do that for you. When you do this for yourself and report back that Amarra is not worth the price, then I will not have a problem with it, and I don't think anyone else will. I'm sure Sonic Studios will oblige you with a review copy if you ask.

Cheers.

[cfmsp]

But until proven wrong, it just looks like a great scam to me that takes advantage of the fact that there is no alternative on MAC.

Where is Amarra for Itunes in Windows if the sonic gain is so great?

Again, the offer is out to prove me wrong.

If some of the Amarra owners here also run a windows partition or virtual machine, give J River a try and let me know what you hear; I am actually interested and the trial is free.

Prove you wrong?  Who said you were right?  You have a mighty high opinion of your, er, opinions, if you think they are anything but that.

You're the only one who can prove yourself wrong.  None of us are wrong just because you declared something different. 

Perhaps you should try the Amarra trial (it's free for 30 days  ) instead of trying to defend your dismissal of something you've never tried?   yawn...


That there's no Amarra for Windows is probably due to multiple reasons, which probably start with the fact that Windows historically has not been a great platform to build audio software upon, but the most cogent of which is that Amarra is based on industry-leading professional audio software called Soundblade which has only been developed for the Mac.

One final note: using a question - for which one doesn't know the answer - as part of one's 'argument' can make one look, well, a little silly.

enjoy
clay

PS, there is other pro audio gear crossing over to audiophile use, which also only supports the Mac and which are industry leading, such as Metric Halo (oem for Sonic Studio) hardware, and Audiofile Engineering's Wave Editor, etc.

PPS, you do know that iTunes on a Mac sounds better than iTunes running on Windows, right?

[mercman]

J.River isn't even close to Amarra in sound quality. Unfortunately, there are too many reviewers online and in traditional print who have no business reviewing computer audio products. Their lack of experience and knowledge is appalling.

 

[wilsynet]

you are correct and my proposal to run a comparison to see if the 4x cost difference is justified has remained unanswered.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=68494.msg635026#msg635026

On 2009-06-02, Steve Nugent wrote "Amarra beats PC Foobar 0.8.3 unmapped.  Hands down."

Is that sufficient?  Does it have to be J River, or can it be Foobar?

Where is Amarra for Itunes in Windows if the sonic gain is so great?

I don't understand the logic that motivates this rhetorical question.  Can you spell it out for me?

If some of the Amarra owners here also run a windows partition or virtual machine, give J River a try and let me know what you hear; I am actually interested and the trial is free.

Steve Nugent has gone on the record regarding Amarra several times.  But maybe you don't trust Steve Nugent.  Ok, how about a non-vendor?

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Amarra?page=5

Search for "I did a head to head test" posted by Brucemck2.  In his post on 2009-08-08 he says:

I did a head to head test of Amarra on a Macbook with 2gb ram vs. J River MC14 on an XP laptop with 3gb ram and also J River MC14 on a Vista laptop with 4gb ram, all using Redbook CD with no upsampling. All went to my Meridian 861v4 dac via an Empirical Audio Offramp with a Superclock 4.

Amarra sounds quite a bit better.

Two posts later on 2009-08-09 he further clarifies the configuration, saying:

Used Wasapi for Vista and used Direct Sound, unmapped, in XP

There, is that good enough?

[Crimson]

J.River isn't even close to Amarra in sound quality. Unfortunately, there are too many reviewers online and in traditional print who have no business reviewing computer audio products. Their lack of experience and knowledge is appalling.

 

That does seem to be the trend lately, doesn't it. I can understand the concern with the price, but complete dismissal of a product without actually trying the product in question, and to claim it a scam, is, IMO, unprofessional.

[FB101]

you are correct and my proposal to run a comparison to see if the 4x cost difference is justified has remained unanswered.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=68494.msg635026#msg635026

On 2009-06-02, Steve Nugent wrote "Amarra beats PC Foobar 0.8.3 unmapped.  Hands down."

Is that sufficient?  Does it have to be J River, or can it be Foobar?

Where is Amarra for Itunes in Windows if the sonic gain is so great?

I don't understand the logic that motivates this rhetorical question.  Can you spell it out for me?

If some of the Amarra owners here also run a windows partition or virtual machine, give J River a try and let me know what you hear; I am actually interested and the trial is free.

Steve Nugent has gone on the record regarding Amarra several times.  But maybe you don't trust Steve Nugent.  Ok, how about a non-vendor?

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Amarra?page=5

Search for "I did a head to head test" posted by Brucemck2.  In his post on 2009-08-08 he says:

I did a head to head test of Amarra on a Macbook with 2gb ram vs. J River MC14 on an XP laptop with 3gb ram and also J River MC14 on a Vista laptop with 4gb ram, all using Redbook CD with no upsampling. All went to my Meridian 861v4 dac via an Empirical Audio Offramp with a Superclock 4.

Amarra sounds quite a bit better.

Two posts later on 2009-08-09 he further clarifies the configuration, saying:

Used Wasapi for Vista and used Direct Sound, unmapped, in XP

There, is that good enough?

Thank you, good references that I will take time to read in details. It leaves one question to me though. How much of the differnce heard is software vs hardware?
IE can we get the same sonic advantage by running J river on a MAC?
No idea, but the link provided do answer some of my interrogations. Thanks

[FB101]

J.River isn't even close to Amarra in sound quality. Unfortunately, there are too many reviewers online and in traditional print who have no business reviewing computer audio products. Their lack of experience and knowledge is appalling.

 

That does seem to be the trend lately, doesn't it. I can understand the concern with the price, but complete dismissal of a product without actually trying the product in question, and to claim it a scam, is, IMO, unprofessional.

Good, it is not my job. You'll notice that I did use the word scam here, to share my impression, never as part of the review although you would be right to point out that the review hints at the same thing.

Nobody will stop using AMarra because of me but hopefully they will stop and think for a minute on whether there is another option - then most people will do their own reserach, find your input and make up their mind. As everybody points out, there are many contradicting voices to mine, but I guess you all need a consensus. A review is one person's opinion, not a mantra.

Again, this review was in the context of building a personal music server, not a professional use. All the other softwares that Amarra may be able to interact with and provide integrated solution with are not really relevant here. The cost of a professional software for users that can pass  as a business cost is another matter altogether from thinking about a home use.

Again, the offer was sent to review Amarra; it is even published in the letter section of the web site.

[FB101]

J.River isn't even close to Amarra in sound quality. Unfortunately, there are too many reviewers online and in traditional print who have no business reviewing computer audio products. Their lack of experience and knowledge is appalling.

 

Please enlighten us and join one of those appalling publications as a reviewer.

The whole point is, Mr. or Mrs Lambda wants to set a PC based audio system and has no clue where to start... well, I can give them a perspective far closer to what they will experience than somebody with years of experience.
The near-sgighted leading the blind, I know... Beats to be told that you need to spend $1000 to read your 24/192 FLAC downloads or need to convert them one by one, at least to me it does.

[FB101]

But until proven wrong, it just looks like a great scam to me that takes advantage of the fact that there is no alternative on MAC.

Where is Amarra for Itunes in Windows if the sonic gain is so great?

Again, the offer is out to prove me wrong.

If some of the Amarra owners here also run a windows partition or virtual machine, give J River a try and let me know what you hear; I am actually interested and the trial is free.

Prove you wrong?  Who said you were right?  You have a mighty high opinion of your, er, opinions, if you think they are anything but that.

You're the only one who can prove yourself wrong.  None of us are wrong just because you declared something different. 

Perhaps you should try the Amarra trial (it's free for 30 days  ) instead of trying to defend your dismissal of something you've never tried?   yawn...


That there's no Amarra for Windows is probably due to multiple reasons, which probably start with the fact that Windows historically has not been a great platform to build audio software upon, but the most cogent of which is that Amarra is based on industry-leading professional audio software called Soundblade which has only been developed for the Mac.

One final note: using a question - for which one doesn't know the answer - as part of one's 'argument' can make one look, well, a little silly.

enjoy
clay

PS, there is other pro audio gear crossing over to audiophile use, which also only supports the Mac and which are industry leading, such as Metric Halo (oem for Sonic Studio) hardware, and Audiofile Engineering's Wave Editor, etc.

PPS, you do know that iTunes on a Mac sounds better than iTunes running on Windows, right?

I see that my statement was not exactly phrazed properly and led to some mis-understanding. My opinion is nothing more than that, my personal view at some point in time. In light of more and different info it is subject to change.

A review is never a universal truth or an absolute, at leats I never consider mine to be; they are nothing more than the perspective of one man at a point in time. A review is meant to feed dialog and preaders' reflection, not provide definitive answers as many people would like them to. SImply because I don't believe in definite answers in audio.

SO you are correct, I probably mis-stated what I wanted to say. Until I have more and different info, my opinion will remain the same. Some of the posters here though have given me food for thoughts and further enquiry which is what I was seeking.

And I do not believe anyone of you is wrong, you have a different opinion based on your experience and perspective. Is that opinion better informed than mine? Probably. Do I look at this from a slightly different angle? Probably again. That does not make me right or you wong.

[bunnyma357]

I read the review, and it seemed to me that most of the comments are in regards to iTunes and its inability to handle the most popular hi-rez formats (FLAC and WMA) and the lack of clear settings to ensure proper bit perfect output. It seems like he was clear that a $1000 dollar plug-in to fix a program that has been crippled by Apple to begin with is a deal breaker - seems like a valid stance to me. He probably said it in more disparaging words than he should have, but it seems like he did give his reasoning.

As long as Amarra is dependent on iTunes, all of iTunes flaws are part of the downside of Amarra - in this case that was enough to not even be considered for use in the test. It also seems that the main point of his complaints were that Apple should fix iTunes, and if they did something like Amarra should be unnecessary.

It seemed like he gave valid reasons for not testing iTunes/Amarra, it's too expensive, and it doesn't support the files he wants to play - both seem like valid reasons for a reviewer to skip testing them.


Jim C

[mercman]

"Please enlighten us and join one of those appalling publications as a reviewer."

You can read my "reviews" at Audio Asylum.  I would prefer not joining any publication so I have total freedom to express my views. Look at the hatchet job performed on the USB primer by The Absolute Sound. Look at Jeff Day's recent review on the Mhdt Labs Havana USB DAC in Positive Feedback as another example of opinion that serves to misinform.

I don't wish to make this a personal attack so I'll stop ranting now.

[Crimson]

Beats to be told that you need to spend $1000 to read your 24/192 FLAC downloads or need to convert them one by one, at least to me it does.

Both statements are incorrect. Again, a little research would yield a more informed opinion. Amarra only reads WAV and AIFF. If you use iTunes and need FLAC decoding, a free pug-in is available.

As long as Amarra is dependent on iTunes, all of iTunes flaws are part of the downside of Amarra

I fail to see the logic. Amarra uses iTunes as a front end only.

[FB101]

"Please enlighten us and join one of those appalling publications as a reviewer."

You can read my "reviews" at Audio Asylum.  I would prefer not joining any publication so I have total freedom to express my views. Look at the hatchet job performed on the USB primer by The Absolute Sound. Look at Jeff Day's recent review on the Mhdt Labs Havana USB DAC in Positive Feedback as another example of opinion that serves to misinform.

I don't wish to make this a personal attack so I'll stop ranting now.

Thanks and I will look up your reviews on AA.
One thing I can ensure you of, nobody ever removes or adds to my reviews. That would be an instant deal breaker for me. Hence if youlike it, I'll take the credit, if you hate it, I'll take the abuse.

To show my ignorance, what was wrong with Jeff's review?

[bunnyma357]

As long as Amarra is dependent on iTunes, all of iTunes flaws are part of the downside of Amarra

I fail to see the logic. Amarra uses iTunes as a front end only.

Right - so if one doesn't like the iTunes front end, that is part of Amarra's baggage. There is good and bad to Amarra relying on iTunes, but personally there is a lot I don't like about iTunes as a front end, and that effects how I view the value of Amarra, versus setting up another front end for my music server. Any program that relies on a host program is going to also have the benefits and flaws of that host program.

I've been following the Amarra threads to see if there is a Sound Quality benefit that would make me want to use a program I don't like or enjoy using in order to play my music. At this point in time the price, hardware requirements, and limited file format support, along with the requirement to use a dongle, have been enough to keep me from trying it.

I have tried using Pure Vinyl to improve iTunes, which it does, and I use that sometimes, but still the front end does matter to me, and I end up mostly listening using the SB3 because I enjoy the interface and the sound quality and it fits my budget.


Jim C

[FB101]

As long as Amarra is dependent on iTunes, all of iTunes flaws are part of the downside of Amarra

I fail to see the logic. Amarra uses iTunes as a front end only.

Right - so if one doesn't like the iTunes front end, that is part of Amarra's baggage. There is good and bad to Amarra relying on iTunes, but personally there is a lot I don't like about iTunes as a front end, and that effects how I view the value of Amarra, versus setting up another front end for my music server. Any program that relies on a host program is going to also have the benefits and flaws of that host program.

I've been following the Amarra threads to see if there is a Sound Quality benefit that would make me want to use a program I don't like or enjoy using in order to play my music. At this point in time the price, hardware requirements, and limited file format support, along with the requirement to use a dongle, have been enough to keep me from trying it.

I have tried using Pure Vinyl to improve iTunes, which it does, and I use that sometimes, but still the front end does matter to me, and I end up mostly listening using the SB3 because I enjoy the interface and the sound quality and it fits my budget.


Jim C
[/quote]

More elegantly said and better argumented than what I wrote, but you and I share the same impression. I'll agree with your comments that I could have turned my comments in a slightly more acceptable way... One of my weaknesses is a somewhat acidic writing style. Guilty as charged!

[Nels Ferre]

More elegantly said and better argumented than what I wrote, but you and I share the same impression. I'll agree with your comments that I could have turned my comments in a slightly more acceptable way... One of my weaknesses is a somewhat acidic writing style. Guilty as charged!
[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with that. At least no one has to "read between the lines" to understand the message you are trying to convey. 

[mercman]

"To show my ignorance, what was wrong with Jeff's review?"


Jeff Day compared the mhdt labs  Havana to a Cosecant Version 3 that used the older Transcendental DAC module; a Phillips TDA 1543N2 NOS DAC chip.  The Cosecant can be purchased with the Transcendental module, but most would opt for the more accurate Numerator with its Wolfson 24/96 DAC.  The Phillips is less accurate from top to bottom compared to the Wolfson.  In fact, many of the attributes that Jeff attributed to the Havana I would say the Transcendental has.

Jeff found the following on his system:

The Wavelength Cosecant also presents timbre in a realistically believable way, although in my system it tends to be a bit more colorful, a bit more bass-heavy, a bit more dramatic, and a bit more electronic and audiophile-like than the Havana (and life itself).

To reach this conclusion, Jeff?s system must be ?bright? as the Transcendental module is softer, less defined, more forgiving of brightly recorded material, etc. I have heard this module in my system and in a number of others many times so I am well acquainted with its sonic attributes. If Jeff had done his homework, he should have gotten a Numerator module for the Cosecant. If nothing else, he should have informed his readers what the options were for the Cosecant.

I would also like to suggest that what Jeff is describing is the sound of increased jitter in the Havana compared to the Cosecant.

What can you derive from this review? Jeff likes the Havana better than the Cosecant. But shouldn?t a reviewer give us a realistic idea of how things sound and not use the DAC as a filter for a highly colored system?

Why review equipment at all?  Everything sounds good and should be matched to your system right?

[ted_b]

Steve,
While i agree with almost everything you post on these forums (and have eda lot of what you discuss), I will disagree with your putting Jeff's review in the same category as the abysmal USB primer from TAS.  First off, Jeff does the one thing that is paramount in any good review, he spends a lot of time telling us what he likes and dislikes, and explains his signal path.  Second, the Transcendental board is still available and is often Gordon's recommendation when only using the DAC for redbook.  Using the Numerator board would upconvert all to 24/96, not a great apples-to-apples comparo to the Havana IMO.  And finally, most of what you seem to disagree with are subjective...assuming it's jitter, assuming Jeff's system is bright, etc.  It's yours to argue, yes, but hardly a hatchet job objectively IMO.

Net/net, there are few reviewers anymore who let us know what perspective they enter the fray with.  Srajan, Jeff and a handful (less than 10) of others are, IMO, in that category.  You don't have to like them, but at least you know their systems and ears pretty well.  To compare that review to the TAS USB fiasco is unfair I think.  My $.02.