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

Amarra - anyone using it? - Page 5

post #61 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercman View Post
The improvement that Amarra provides to iTunes is not small. It is even more apparent with hi-rez material.

All one has to do is listen to the Demo and make your own conclusions.
Of course everyone should make their own conclusions. Some (myself included) would like an explanation as to the cause of any perceived difference or improvement in SQ. If its not some form of processing, what is it?
post #62 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by omasciarotte View Post
It's designed to minimally process the data read from disk. That said, one generally cannot or should not simply read the data from disk and send it to the I/O. There is usually transcoding, like floats to fixed conversion and redithering, before the data can be passed to the output interface.
If you are going to be manipulating the data in the original audio file you will certainly need to do things like transcoding, fixed to float (and back) conversion, re-dithering, etc.

The problem is...a bit-perfect computer music playing program should not be doing any of that (not one that I want to use, at least). It should not attempt to change one single bit of the original data (16-bits in...16-bits out, untouched). That means that transcoding, float conversions, and re-dithering are unnecessary.

Again, if you want manipulated audio data (something that the people who created the original CD you purchased did not feel was appropriate, or else they would have done it themselves), you can achieve that with just about any music playing program, but it might require some experimentation to get the combination that sounds right for one's own ears. Perhaps Amarra provides a better user interface for someone that is experimenting the digital signal processing/manipulation than the existing programs (Foobar2000, iTunes, WinAmp, etc.).

And, yes, if you aren't messing with the original data before sending it onto the driver, you have some pretty simple buffering requirements (async reads into a buffer, when it reaches a reasonable level begin outputting, read more data into the buffer when there is sufficient room but before starvation occurs...pretty basic stuff). Now, if you need to modify that data and put the output elsewhere, and that modification is CPU intensive, you may need to get a bit more creative. :-)
post #63 of 691
Reader, you are right, it's late. Edited to remove stupid conjecture.
post #64 of 691
OK Cool!
post #65 of 691
The option is, iTunes itself is flawed. So using another play would eliminate the need for Amarra right?
post #66 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoYouRight View Post
The option is, iTunes itself is flawed. So using another play would eliminate the need for Amarra right?
Please explain how iTunes is flawed.
post #67 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoYouRight View Post
The option is, iTunes itself is flawed.
How is iTunes flawed?
Afaik it can be set up to output bit-perfect audio through the optical S/PDIF out.
post #68 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by krmathis View Post
How is iTunes flawed?
Afaik it can be set up to output bit-perfect audio through the optical S/PDIF out.
Depends on the operating system in use. On a Mac, just turn off all the options that manipulate the sound (EQ, etc.), and turn the volume all the way up, and you're there.

Due to how Windows handles audio, it's not that simple, if you're not on a Mac.

Contrary to what some think, Apple did not intentionally cripple iTunes on Windows. MS did that all by itself.
post #69 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfmsp View Post
. . . Due to how Windows handles audio, it's not that simple. . .
Please explain.
post #70 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by terriblepaulz View Post
Please explain.
being a 'Mac', I don't completely understand all the details, but will relay what I believe to be true. I'm certain others will correct me if I'm wrong.

As I understand it, Windows uses something called the K-mixer which degrades the audio quality and prevents bit-perfect output on Windows. Windows legacy audio components - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Back to my original point, 'it's not that simple' means that work is required to get bit perfect output and/or highest quality sound from any player on Windows, not just iTunes. As I understand it, iTunes is NOT actually recommended as a high quality music player on Windows - I believe due to an inability to eliminate the troubling aspects of kmixer.

Try media monkey instead.
post #71 of 691
You could easily read by searching terriblepaulz. I am not the most "TECH" person but from my reading and trial and error. iTunes does not sound better than other options I have at hand. It is the "hip/trendy" player on PC to try to make it similar to MACS. The Mac version is alot better. But there should be no need for a plugin at that price to make it audio pro grade.
post #72 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoYouRight View Post
You could easily read by searching terriblepaulz. I am not the most "TECH" person but from my reading and trial and error. iTunes does not sound better than other options I have at hand. It is the "hip/trendy" player on PC to try to make it similar to MACS. The Mac version is alot better. But there should be no need for a plugin at that price to make it audio pro grade.
I did a little searching, and got a little frustrated because so much of what I found were simple assertions and statements of individuals' impressions which told me nothing. I admit I'm impatient. Sorry for thread jacking.
post #73 of 691
Scrith, I spoke to the software developers. He says that there is no playback system that can playback without converting to a float. All current hardware requires a float input. So you could make a playback software that did not change to a float, but there is no hardware that supports that.

Do you know a system that does this?
post #74 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfmsp View Post
As I understand it, Windows uses something called the K-mixer which degrades the audio quality and prevents bit-perfect output on Windows. Windows legacy audio components - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey it's not so bad. Kmixer and windows 'just works'. If you play at a sample rate your soundcard doesn't support, kmixer will resample it for you. It allows 2 files to be played at once, like system error beeps, and mixes them together and possibly resamples if it's needed. That's windows XP.

Windows vista is even better. All you have to do is use wasapi output and not only do you get bit perfect, you get exclusive output. Not even ASIO can do that. And how about waveRT? Anyone here with an echo audiofire? I think that can do bitperfect with regular apps that use direct sound (like iTunes on windows). WaveRT is vista/windows7 only.
post #75 of 691
Sound like a complete foolishness to me.

I mean, if I am using WASAPI and Vista anf Foobar2000 and a USB native thing (like the Benchmark DAC1) and everything is BIT PERFECT

How will a new software will improve it ?!

I only need to get the bits out of my PC to my DAC, so why would there be any change if the bits are the same ?!

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