Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Amarra - anyone using it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amarra - anyone using it? - Page 2

post #16 of 643
6/10/09 at 3:59am
I'm puzzled about the responses I'm reading in this thread, too. Actually, of the things I missed at Can Jam 2009, Voltron's full Amarra setup is at or near the top of my list.
Reply

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #17 of 643
6/10/09 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
From the Urban Dictionary:

1. combinate

vb. to combine.
Comes from the word "combination".
It makes more sense this way.
We must combinate our forces to defeat the enemy!!!


I thought I would point out the use of your word, since you don't mind saying people are brain damaged.
Thanks for the hint you are right, wrong wording. But I kind of like old fashioned words.

Anyway, more seriously, let's discuss objectively about what makes this software worth 1,5k$. I am really interested in the discussion.

What do you see in this software that makes it so special and worth the money ? super duper EQ filters ? Even better stereo widening ? I personally like to keep my audio samples untouched.
Many products exist already on the market, many are free... and open source. Ok not so simple for mac, but is that the only selling point ?

Say you listen to PCM samples from a CD, quite typical example. What is this software doing to make the samples suddenly so fantastic ?
Reply
post #18 of 643
6/10/09 at 11:51am
Regardless of it's authenticity, the price tag is still ridiculous for software.
Reply
post #19 of 643
6/10/09 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by falang View Post
Regardless of it's authenticity, the price tag is still ridiculous for software.
Not according to what I just paid for some software upgrades!

On a forum where people regularly drop some crazy coin on amps, DACS etc...I'm really surprised by the sour grapes tone of some of the posters here.
All the more so as almost no one has heard amarra.

Yeah, 1.5K is some serious money but it's not like it's tootally obscene or out of line with what folks are paying to hear good music.
Reply
post #20 of 643
6/10/09 at 12:27pm
Why not give it a fair try before claiming it to be overpriced?
It is a lot of money, but for all we know it may improve the sound just as much as if you spent the same amount on hardware (DAC, amplification, ...).
Reply
post #21 of 643
6/10/09 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by krmathis View Post
Why not give it a fair try before claiming it to be overpriced?
It is a lot of money, but for all we know it may improve the sound just as much as if you spent the same amount on hardware (DAC, amplification, ...).
Although I don't know what is so special about this software I would think twice (more like ten) times before I would spend $1500 or more for a small piece of code. Especially because most of what the program does isn't all that special.

That said, I haven't heard it and it might very well the best thing since sliced bread, but even then, how long will it take before the code to achieve this supreme audio quality will be available as open source? I don't mind waiting for another year or 2 if that means I'll save another $1500. Being the first with such things always means you will have to shell out big time.
Reply
post #22 of 643
6/10/09 at 1:57pm
supposedly, a MAC can't output bit-perfect audio...and that'd be where this thing comes to the rescue, making sure that no SRC whatsoever takes place.
Reply
post #23 of 643
6/10/09 at 5:25pm
What a disappointing glut of baseless judgments...
Reply
post #24 of 643
6/10/09 at 5:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessingx View Post
It comes from a company with years in pro-audio. And where the Mac is the largest user base. It's what they know and the audio engines don't have much in common.

Many have heard it at CanJam and I have privately and to confuse this with a MP3 "expander" is to ignore its creator history.

The gut reaction many are tossing out in this thread reminds me why I don't visit HF that much anymore.
that explains why they released it for mac, but why not for pc? As tiny as the mac userbase is in the overall picture, the pro-audio niche has to be even smaller. The PC by comparison I would imagine would be just as big if not bigger. Why not release on Win platform too?

Is its most valuable feature that it does bit-perfect?
Reply
post #25 of 643
6/10/09 at 6:43pm
Maybe because a PC can output bit perfect already through ASIO.
Reply
post #26 of 643
6/10/09 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadrangulum View Post
What a disappointing glut of baseless judgments...
I agree, and pruned the thread.
Reply
post #27 of 643
6/10/09 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post
Maybe because a PC can output bit perfect already through ASIO.
So.. just so I'm understanding this properly... Amarra is basically a bit-perfect driver for the mac audio? That's all you're getting for $1,500?
Reply
post #28 of 643
6/10/09 at 10:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojamijams View Post
So.. just so I'm understanding this properly... Amarra is basically a bit-perfect driver for the mac audio? That's all you're getting for $1,500?
There is more to it than that. I have yet to hear an equivalent PC-based system that sounds as good, and I am primarily PC-based. I just got a Mac Mini two weeks ago.

The experiments that I have done using WiFi devices, reclockers, Firewire and USB converters demonstrated to me that there are two components to Amarra:

1) jitter reduction of iTunes
2) avoidance of damaging code in Core Audio

I understand (1), but not (2).

Without Amarra, converters that are affected by jitter sound fairly bad using itunes, worse than the same converters used on a PC. With Amarra, they sound better than on a PC.

With the jitter basically reduced to inaudibility levels using reclockers and WiFi devices, Amarra still makes a difference. This is not jitter.

Amarra handles the data differently than Windows audio stack or Mac Core Audio. Format is different. Based on Sonic Studio software for pro audio recording studios.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Reply
post #29 of 643
6/10/09 at 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessingx View Post
It comes from a company with years in pro-audio. And where the Mac is the largest user base. It's what they know and the audio engines don't have much in common.

Many have heard it at CanJam and I have privately and to confuse this with a MP3 "expander" is to ignore its creator history.

The gut reaction many are tossing out in this thread reminds me why I don't visit HF that much anymore.
Damn, you hit the nail on the head.
Reply
post #30 of 643
6/11/09 at 12:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
supposedly, a MAC can't output bit-perfect audio....
@leeperry: that's an interesting statement, can you provide some background? one would think the pro audio world would be concerned....

curious, especially as iTunes running under OS X on a Mac has been demonstrated empirically (ie not just by "I heard it" or "there have been shoot-outs" comments) to yied bit-perfect playback and output of source files at rates up through 24/192. see as one possibly interesting example the testing info on Kent Poon's design With Sound site Design w Sound » CAS 5: CD Ripping ; and as well his results confirming iTunes (QuickTime?) errors with hi-res files in Windows Design w Sound » iTunes 8.1.1.10 PC Problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by audioengr View Post
The experiments that I have done using WiFi devices, reclockers, Firewire and USB converters demonstrated to me that there are two components to Amarra:

1) jitter reduction of iTunes
2) avoidance of damaging code in Core Audio

I understand (1), but not (2).

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

@empiricalaudio: steve, as you understand /1/, would you be so kind to explain how iTunes (a file management program) creates jitter?

confused: isn't jitter a characteristic associated with timing discrepancies of data transmission in bus architectures; in the general case for audio as discussed in these and related threads -- and as explained in many of your postings on various fora -- these of interest are external to the computer, such as TOS/coax SPDIF, Firewire and USB -- the interfaces that reclocker products are intended to address.

also, how does this other software program (Amarra) likewise have an effect on external bus timing jitter?

or do you mean some other type of jitter?

specifically interested to understand your post above in light of buffering / data translation which takes place before data "exits the computer"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Amarra - anyone using it?