Amarra Music Player

ltonkin · « **Reply #200 on:** 25 Aug 2009, 08:57 pm »

Hi jhm,

I run Amarra into a modded Tact S2150 via an Empirical Offramp 3 and it's not even close with an optical cable. A cheap re-clocker like the Monarch DIP can help the optical, but it still doesn't hold a candle to the Offramp. This really isn't a fair comparison unless you have another box (Offramp or Pacecar or ?) between your Mac and the Tact.

ted_b · « **Reply #201 on:** 25 Aug 2009, 09:37 pm »

JHM,
?? Not sure why you lumped me in with Sanjay's argument, saying I am "assuming problems which don't exist". I was coming to your defense, saying you were NOT using the internal DAC, you were using a good Tact DAC, and using it for both transports. And that the Monster cable was a digital one All I said about the comapro was that the cables were different (fact) and could be debated ad nauseum.

Ciamara · « **Reply #202 on:** 25 Aug 2009, 09:42 pm »

That is true. I am the one pointing out that your comparison seems tenuous. Please confirm the signal path with us so we can be sure we can move to the next step of understanding the issue you are having with Amarra. Like I said, I would love to hear the PWT, but to assert that it is better than Amarra, we should at least be provided with the full details of your comparison.

jhm731 · « **Reply #203 on:** 25 Aug 2009, 09:47 pm »

Hi ltonkin-

Who upgraded your S2150?

For 16/44.1 files, I put an upgraded Genesis Digital Lens between the Macbook and TacT, results were a little
closer, but still preferred the PWT.

I'm sure the Pacecar is a great product, but I'll wait for the new PS Audio Digital Lens.

ted_b- sorry for including you with sunjitwhy.

silverlight · « **Reply #204 on:** 25 Aug 2009, 10:14 pm »

The PWT/PWD/Bridge combo is a potentially very interesting product, and I hope to be able to hear them when the Bridge comes out later in the year. Compared to the high priced stuff that's tossed about on CA and here (Amarra+DAC+Mac+Pre) the PWD+Bridge could be quite interesting and very easy to use for those not inclined to mess with computers (and I'm biased the computer-based setup, but sound quality is sound quality at the end of the day). Paul McGowan posted a great response on their forums recently that was a nice summary:

While the Bridge has a Lens built into it (as does the PWT) there?s plenty difference between the outboard standalone Lens and the built in one. For one thing, the standalone Lens has a very complex receiver called the Symbolic Logic Receiver that takes the S/PDIF signals coming into it and removes the data and throws away the clocks. Neither built in Lens has this chore nor the ability and hardware to pull it off. This is a very big piece of engineering in the standalone Lens and took nearly three years of work (at various times in the last decade) to figure it out. First conceived by myself and then implemented by Bob Stadtherr - that early version never saw the light of day. Our Romanian engineering team, led by our good friend Nucu, has designed a modern version of this fascinating circuit which, frankly, is the heart of the outboard Lens and what makes it so special.
The SLR does not rely on edge triggering to decode the PCM signals. Instead, it takes a series of ?snapshots? and figures out what the pattern is of the PCM code based on a set of stored symbols and then assembles these symbols into a meaningful data train. This completely eliminates clocks and jitter before it even goes into the Lens.
The Bridge has the memory part of the Lens and the reconstruction part of the Lens and the outboard asynchronous clocks. It also has a complete Linux operating system inside an ARM processor that is handling the transcoding of FLAC, MPEG etc, the smarts to communicate with the NAS server to find and route the data, etc. They are very different beasts.
So from a very broad perspective think of it this way: there are different jobs needed for each of these devices and we build specific engines for these tasks.
The PWT?s job is to extract data from optical discs, organize the data and then present it in jitter free fashion to the outside world.
The PWD job is to convert PCM data to analog. It was conceived as a pair (with the PWT) and as a pair, coupled with I2S, you have a perfect jitter free music system. It also has well designed ?courtesy inputs? that accepts musical data from other sources.
The outboard Lens job is to take non-PerfectWave sources (Apple TV?s, computers, Sonos, etc.) and convert their compromised data streams into perfected streams with jitter free output so the PWD can then process them with the same (or close) performance as you would get as paired with the PWT.
The Bridge provides perfected access to network data and internet data. That data comes in many forms and the bridge which it must transcode and render properly for the PWD to recognize it and play it and it must also know how to communicate and control the outside storage mediums to access that data.
So we have three data providers or portals (PWT, Bridge and Lens) and one data rendering or converting device (PWD). Each of the data portals retrieves the data in different ways, but once the data is gathered, it passes through a Lens, specific to that data portal, with identical output results. The PWT retrieves optically stored data, the Bridge retrieves network accessible data and the Lens takes any PCM source and converts the data through its SLR receiver to achieve the same quality level as the first two I just mentioned. Think of the outboard Lens as the great S/PDIF ?fixer? as it is the only data portal of any of these products that actually fixes S/PDIF encoded data.
Three portals, each retrieving data in their own unique way, processing that data through a specific internal Digital lens and outputting the data with a low jitter asynchronous clock.
The entire PW series started with one philosophical idea: that it won?t matter how the musical data is stored, retrieved or transmitted. The PW series (when completed) will be able to handle any of the many data forms with equal performance because of the internal lens and output circuitry.
Lastly, the Bridge will not require a computer - only a network attached storage.
Hope that helps.
LINK

ltonkin · « **Reply #205 on:** 26 Aug 2009, 12:12 am »

Hi jhm,

I bought a second hand Maui Mod 2150 to replace my stock 2150XDM. That fixed some of my dissatisfaction, but the Empirical + Amarra is what really makes me smile.

The PW Digital Lens sounds like it can equal or better the Empirical products and I'd love to have a shoot-out between the two once the Digital Lens ships. The PW Bridge sounds nice too, if I can control it from my iPhone.

cfcjb · « **Reply #206 on:** 7 Sep 2009, 07:43 am »

Taken from the new 6moons review of the Weiss Minerva.
Ouch!

"On MAC, a plug-in for iTunes exists which for a paltry $995 enables changing the sampling rate automatically to read most PCM-based formats. Although Amarra, that's the name of this priceless wonder, allegedly also offers better conversions algorithms and multi-band equalization, its main virtue is to lighten your wallet to the tune of over forty high-resolution downloads, for features Foobar offers for free and J. River amongst many others for just $50. A light version of Amarra exists which is substantially cheaper ($395) but foregoes the equalizer and is limited to 24/96kHz. Why would anybody buy a state-of-the-art 24/192kHz DAC and then spend $400 to have it crippled, especially when the same amount will allow you to run a Windows partition on your MAC and run J. River or Foobar without such limitations?"

ltonkin · « **Reply #207 on:** 7 Sep 2009, 05:07 pm »

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but the author never listened with Amarra. He just assumed it was equivalent to the sound of the free solutions on the PC side. Seems to me that's a reviewer no-no.

ted_b · « **Reply #208 on:** 7 Sep 2009, 05:15 pm »

I know Frederic and emailed him about it. He has an allergic reaction to the pricing, as we all did, but I told him how to eval it via the $50 refundable iLok rental and he seems open to it. I'll post if he emails me any updates, or updates the review.

drubin · « **Reply #209 on:** 8 Sep 2009, 04:27 pm »

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.

Crimson · « **Reply #210 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 08:12 pm »

Seems Amarra, iTunes 9, and networked drives (NAS) don't play nice. Can't really tell at this point who the culprit is, although the only thing that has changed is iTunes (this on a Leopard machine). Anyone else running this combo successfully? I'd also recommend disabling Amarra's auto launch feature when upgrading iTunes.

I was going to move away from NAS and go with firewire externals for my music. Maybe this is a sign to do so sooner rather than later.

Will report back with findings.

dave clark · « **Reply #211 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 11:51 pm »

I am currently using Amarra (3162) with iTunes 9 with a NAS (via cat 6) on a Macbook (Intel 2.4/1066/4gb ram/Snow Leopard) with no issues.

Ciamara · « **Reply #212 on:** 10 Sep 2009, 11:56 pm »

We are not using a NAS, but for what it's worth, iTunes 9 on Snow Leopard with Amarra (build 3162) is working fine here. We just received the Model 4 and have been doing some comparisons with the Alpha Berkeley + Lynx AES16e. They are very close competitors in terms of sound quality. Wow. (P.S. We are working towards carrying BOTH units as a dealer, so you should consider this honest, unbiased feedback.)

drubin · « **Reply #213 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 12:02 am »

Sanjay -- what is the Model 4?

Ciamara · « **Reply #214 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 12:06 am »

This is Sonic Studio's top of the line DAC. It is an 8-channel in, 8-channel out DAC that integrates seamlessly with Amarra via Firewire. It has a lot of features normally only found on mastering-quality professional interfaces. If you think you may at some point do any recording (such as converting your vinyl records or tapes to high resolution digital files), this one deserves a good, hard listen. We have one here in our NY showroom until September 19th in case anyone wants to test drive it. We also have the Weiss DAC2, the Berkeley Alpha and the Lavry DA11 here. Happy listening!

P.S. The new Beatles re-masters sound really, really good!

jhm731 · « **Reply #215 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 12:24 am »

Quote from: sunjitwhy on 10 Sep 2009, 11:56 pm

P.S. We are working towards carrying BOTH units as a dealer, so you should consider this honest, unbiased feedback.)

drubin · « **Reply #216 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 12:26 am »

Thanks Sanjay. How would you compare the sound quality of the Weiss DAC2 vs. the Model 4 vs. the Lynx/BADA?

Ciamara · « **Reply #217 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 12:35 am »

Good question. (Full disclosure: We are also looking into becoming the New York dealer for Weiss). I would say the Weiss DAC2 is smoother in character, but not in a bad way. It is more "analog," if that makes sense. The Berkeley and the Model 4 seem to offer a little more fine detail and air on first impressions. So it really comes down to personal preference. If you want a warm presentation, the Weiss is a very nice option. If you want every little nuance, the Model 4 and the BADA are a better bet. They are precise, without being clinical.

I am hosting an NY Audio Rave here on the 19th, and several Audio Circle members will be in attendance. (None are affiliated with Ciamara.) So, I might suggest you peek in that circle after the 19th to see what other people think as well. Hope that helps!

ted_b · « **Reply #218 on:** 11 Sep 2009, 12:58 am »

Sanjay's comments on the DAC2 vs the Berkeley are exactly what I heard (had both inhouse for lengthy evals), and i opted for the Weiss due to the warmer analog midrange....but it was purely a personal decision. The BADA (and the Sonic 4) are tremendous DACs worthy of any hi-end setup, and there are times when I wish I had the slightly wider soundstage and detail of the BADA, and imes when the Weiss's glorious midrange and dynamics make it clearly the right DAC for the job. It's all about subtle tradeoffs at this level.

FB101 · « **Reply #219 on:** 12 Sep 2009, 07:50 pm »

Quote from: ltonkin on 7 Sep 2009, 05:07 pm

Ummm, correct me if I am wrong, but the author never listened with Amarra. He just assumed it was equivalent to the sound of the free solutions on the PC side. Seems to me that's a reviewer no-no.

you are correct and my proposal to run a comparison to see if the 4x cost difference is justified has remained unanswered.
I have no problem writing an update and eat my hat on what I have written if there is a justifiable difference with running J River / wasapi on a Windows partition.
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.