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

Amarra - anyone using it? - Page 6

post #76 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadLover View Post
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 ?!
New software can resample the audio to a higher freq. That might sound better. You can do that for free with a really high quality resampler too. You can use other DSPs to enhance the audio. Bitperfect is nice and all, but I think you can do better.
post #77 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Duck View Post
New software can resample the audio to a higher freq. That might sound better. You can do that for free with a really high quality resampler too. You can use other DSPs to enhance the audio. Bitperfect is nice and all, but I think you can do better.
resampling ALWAYS increases the THD+N distortion, it will ONLY degrade the SQ.
what improves the SQ is oversampling, and it has to be done in the DAC chip...the soundcard BIOS/drivers need to force it to 128X if available.
post #78 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
resampling ALWAYS increases the THD+N distortion, it will ONLY degrade the SQ.
A quality resampler doesn't degrade SQ much. It would be pretty tough to hear the difference. DAC chips have better measured performance at 24/192 compared 16/44.1 so maybe that's why it might sound better. Some people seem to like doing it.
post #79 of 691
$1500 for software music player? lol.
post #80 of 691
So, when will it be for windows? I really want to buy it
post #81 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Duck View Post
A quality resampler doesn't degrade SQ much. It would be pretty tough to hear the difference. DAC chips have better measured performance at 24/192 compared 16/44.1 so maybe that's why it might sound better. Some people seem to like doing it.
indeed, if you DAC does poor filtering at 44.1KHz....it might -in some cases- slightly improve w/ upsampling...theoritically at least.

but why not getting a proper DAC in the first place? saying that upsampling will improve the SQ is major snake oil IMO....oversampling is not, but many ppl(including manufacturers) like to mix the 2 words, when they actually have little in common

I've seen some "magic" DAC's that are called "NOS"(No OverSampling?)....but all the DAC's oversample(yeah I checked the datasheets), and there's no good reason why you wouldn't want to oversample, it will only improve the post-filtering in the DAC

a poor clock design could indeed degrade 44.1KHz decoding, but ditching it is your best option then..
post #82 of 691
Let's use Benchmark DAC1 as an example. Inside this dac, it resamples all audio to somthing like 110 KHz. Can't remember the exact frequency off the top of my head. They used that frequency because they found that was the 'optimum' one for best performance. If not best performance, then the best SQ baring in mind its a pro dac so they were going for analytical over hifi. If you have software resampler that is really excelent, then you could resample to 110KHz in software. It might improve SQ if your software resampler is better than the hardware one inside the DAC1. But I'm only guessing here, I havn't used upsampling.

$1500 for a media player is a joke IMO. The fact that member of the trade people say it's worth it doesn't surprise me. Even if they don't get paid for a sale of the software, it is in their interests to help eachother out and generates more business for them.
post #83 of 691
Why isn't there a windows version? windows 7 and Vista 64bit ?!
post #84 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Duck View Post
Let's use Benchmark DAC1 as an example. Inside this dac, it resamples all audio to somthing like 110 KHz. Can't remember the exact frequency off the top of my head. They used that frequency because they found that was the 'optimum' one for best performance. If not best performance, then the best SQ baring in mind its a pro dac so they were going for analytical over hifi. If you have software resampler that is really excelent, then you could resample to 110KHz in software. It might improve SQ if your software resampler is better than the hardware one inside the DAC1. But I'm only guessing here, I havn't used upsampling.
upsampling is interpolating data, and compromising the distortion rates...it might counterbalance w/ some weakness in the DAC(poor 44.1KHz post-filtering?), but this kind of statement requires technical proofs IMO

too many upsampling DAC manufacturers state this kind of things as "facts"....we want proofs!

try to play around w/ the r8Brain Pro resampler, see how it goes for you.

you can use SineGen to create 1Khz wave files, then WaveSpectra to measure THD/THD+N....I did it for Reclock(oops, pix are 404 now) : SlySoft Forum - View Single Post - Bit exact audio in Reclock without any resampling
post #85 of 691
This product seems a bit of a joke to me. It appears to be nothing but some mastering software repackaged (badly) into an itunes plugin. While I don't doubt that the gain adjustment and EQ are better than what is found in iTunes the kind of person who may buy this product is not going to be using these features. And if they are using a 24 bit DAC (most likely) the word length adjustment is pointless too. All that is left is the sample-rate detection (nice but worth the cash???). Itunes offers Bit-Perfect output and there is nothing I can find in the literature that would indicate that Amarra improves jitter, so what does it have to offer?

While the technology clearly has a pedigree in the studio I have no idea what this has to do with playback. The processes and requirements involved in the studio are completely different to those of the listening room. I don't want a multi-band compressor attached to my hifi, even if some people may think it sounds better. The hardware is particularly silly. Why would anyone outside of the studio require 8 channels of analog input? Whereas there are no phantom powered mic inputs which, given that amarra offers room correction via EQ, may have been useful.

IMO, the likely scenario goes like this - Pro-audio company has a technology which it has successfully sold to the pro-audio industry. Said company needs a bit of cash. Said company jerry rigs said technology to work in itunes and sells it as a great technological advance hoping to sell it to people who don;t understand enough about the technology to know they don't need it. A nice chunk of cash with sod all R & D required.

Sell it as a £100 itunes plugin and fair enough, but $1500 is just taking the proverbial
post #86 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugq View Post
While the technology clearly has a pedigree in the studio
are they really famous? they make it sound like they're parented w/ Sonic...Solutions to me.
post #87 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadLover View Post
Why isn't there a windows version? windows 7 and Vista 64bit ?!
Read the thread.
It has been answered at least once...
post #88 of 691
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugq View Post
Sell it as a £100 itunes plugin and fair enough, but $1500 is just taking the proverbial
This is the crux of the original post, really. With so many free players out there, $1,500 should promise (and deliver) such an epic improvement in sound quality that people willingly part with that much cash.

Anyway, the quality of the source is only part of the chain; maybe Amarra does really shine with very high-end systems, where $1,500 is a drop in the ocean compared to the system's overall cost.
post #89 of 691
Sonic Studio is the original company from the 1980s that created the Wav file (working with Microsoft) and pioneered CD burning and ripping etc. They launched some of the first software for CD ripping and burning. This software became very successful (eventually becoming Roxio etc.) and they decided to split the original Pro Audio company off into a separate entity. This is Sonic Studio today. Sonic Solutions still has an interest in Sonic Studio. Sonic Studio was also involved in the development of DSD and was one of the original licensees of the technology.
post #90 of 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioengr View Post
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
Steve,

I was hoping you would understand better because of Amarra what is and what is not jitter.

There is no jitter inside a computer, heck not even on the USB link. Amarra does not change the jitter in the system.

I did the following test today with exactly the same results and you can do this also:

MacBook Pro----->Benchmark --------WCLK output TAS1020===>Wavecrest

iTunes, GarageBand, Amarra, it didn't matter the jitter was the same for all of them.

Look people software changes the character of sound. You should all realize this. Even if you get bit perfect output the difference in using say Foobar on a PC and iTunes or even Amarra on the MAC will make things sound different.

BUT THIS DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH JITTER!

Guys look... everything effects sound. Why is a mystery that will live forever.

What ever Amarra does is more correct than straight iTunes. There are some other PRO type MAC apps that sound just about the same. But really PRO software does not have what it takes to make it a viable play source.

Why not PC? well I spent all day at a huge recording studio today doing some work (I also play drums and percussion as well as a decent hack at guitar) and they had 18 recording studios about 100 MAC's not one PC to be seen. Most of the high end Pro software is only MAC.

The cool thing is this is all software and it can be downloaded and installed and we are moving forward.

Thanks
Gordon
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?