[deanderson]

Didn't see a thread on this so I decided to start one.
 
Is anyone using the new version of Amarra (3.0)? I'd be interested to hear impressions/comparisons with other players. I'm having problems with crashes on OS 10.9.4, so it's been difficult to compare Amarra 3.0 with Audirvana Plus, but from what I remember:
 
1. Amarra 3.0 sounds a bit grainier compared to A+, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it brings some more air to the treble.
2. A+ is, I think, a more generically enjoyable experience - music is conveyed with a fullness or cohesiveness not present in regular old iTunes. It kind of has an analog feel, which might be some clever software illusion, but it's pleasant.
3. When compared to Amarra, however, this analog sound becomes more obvious, and makes me wonder how realistic it is. It does seem like A+ smooths over some of the micro details that Amarra is happy to convey, especially in the bass. But, again, I haven't been able to do a close comparison, as Amarra keeps crashing whenever I open it.
 
Note: I'm listening to a new Geek Out 450, and Dita Truth, so I may be hearing things in those units that will pass away when burn-in settles in more deeply.
 
Please post your impressions!

 

[deanderson]

So, after an uninstall/reinstall, I got Amarra 3.0 up and running again.
 
After comparing one song on both players ("A Fall" by Rumpistol),
 
I notice that A+ has somewhat of a more intimate presentation than Amarra, but at the cost of a smaller soundstage and less attention to micro detail. 
 
With Amarra I can hear the quivering of the singer's voice, and make out each separate note with ease.
 
A+, on the other hand, is a tad more engaging, because the instruments feel like they are actually in my ears, but with less distinct separation, and less of an ambient presentation. It feel more like sound, or a song, with A+, and less like you're listening to a distinct group of instruments/notes.
 
I wouldn't characterize Amarra as detached, but the sound feels farther away. But, again, only in comparison to A+. This allows for a more relaxed listening experience, a feeling of a much deeper soundstage, and the ability to hear more nuance and micro detail, without strain. Above I described it's presentation as grainy - I would agree with this, but only in comparison to A+ - I personally prefer Amarra, I think Sonic Studios did something great here.
 
All in all, Amarra sounds more like studio equipment, while A+ is just a pleasant upgrade from iTunes.
 
Amarra has a less in your face presentation than A+, but sounds much tighter in the bass and treble to me.
 
Please let me know if you agree or disagree!

 

[deanderson]

Perhaps I'll just be conversing with myself in this thread, but I'm okay with that! Trying to describe differences in music players will be my practice for an upcoming review I will do on the Ditas.
 
After more listening to Amarra 3.0 (It's left Audirvana + in the dust), I've noticed a few things that it can do that I haven't found in A+:
 
1. It's presentation of vocals is much more honest than A+. I'm not sure if its just the closer presentation that A+ has, or if it lacks in detail compared to Amarra, or if it's actually coloring what I'm hearing, but with Amarra you can actually perceive the unique character of a singer's voice. This includes stops for breath, but also the kind of emotional state the singer was in when they were recording. This may not be news for some, but I'm new to the audio world, so this possibility comes as a surprise. In other words, I'm starting to notice that I'm just listening to a person in a recording studio, rather than becoming absorbed in the song as a whole track. With Amarra, it is quite easy to pick up when a vocal track is opened on the mixer, as there is a subtle background noise in that part of the earphone around where the singing enters. I don't notice this with as much ease on A+, as all the instruments seem to bleed together, at least when compared to Amarra. So, listening to Amarra, it is becoming easier for me to distinguish the special character the singer is bringing to each recording, even on different tracks of the same artist. This includes intonation of different notes, the emotion behind the lyrics, things like that. I didn't get this quality with A+.
 
2. Instrument separation and detail are far superior on Amarra. (I already stated this above, but the difference is becoming more marked to me as I continue to listen).
 
3. Before I thought bass was lacking in Amarra compared to A+, but I'm pretty sure this is because it is less boomy. I find this quality of A+ to be distracting. All in all, the bass is just more articulate and natural with Amarra. No bleed here, throughout any of the frequencies.
 
4. It really sounds like all of the sounds in a song, while using Amarra, are emanating from one source - the grain of recording equipment. While listening with A+, I don't get the feeling I'm listening to something that was recording and mixed into one sonic whole. Rather, I feel like I'm being bombarded with sounds from very close. I guess this would give the music more of a live effect, but I don't prefer it - it sounds bloated and immature in comparison.
 
More to come - I hope someone besides me is finding this useful!

 

[santacore]

Amarra has always been my favorite sounding player, but lately I switched to A+ just for a change. When the Amarra 3.0 upgrade came out, I switched back a few days ago. My past preferences still hold true, I prefer the sound of Amarra. I've always felt it had more resolution and depth, but with a more relaxed and musical sound. A+ has always seemed more modern and in your face to my ears. I will say that A+ seems a little bit more stable, which is  a plus, but not enough for me to switch back.
 
One note-you should re-start your computer between switching players. It re-sets the audio engine and allows you to hear the true differences.

 

[AxelCloris]

Any more impressions between the two would be greatly appreciated. I'm considering which player to buy. They're effectively the same price with the 15% Amarra 3.0 discount and sharing the second license with a friend.

 

[deanderson]

Will do, expect them later today!
 
Daniel
 
Edit: what kind of music do you listen to? - I could tailor the impressions towards a few select songs - that seems like it would refine the comparison...

 

[NinjaHamster]

  Perhaps I'll just be conversing with myself in this thread, but I'm okay with that! Trying to describe differences in music players will be my practice for an upcoming review I will do on the Ditas.
 
After more listening to Amarra 3.0 (It's left Audirvana + in the dust), I've noticed a few things that it can do that I haven't found in A+:
 
1. It's presentation of vocals is much more honest than A+. I'm not sure if its just the closer presentation that A+ has, or if it lacks in detail compared to Amarra, or if it's actually coloring what I'm hearing, but with Amarra you can actually perceive the unique character of a singer's voice. This includes stops for breath, but also the kind of emotional state the singer was in when they were recording. This may not be news for some, but I'm new to the audio world, so this possibility comes as a surprise. In other words, I'm starting to notice that I'm just listening to a person in a recording studio, rather than becoming absorbed in the song as a whole track. With Amarra, it is quite easy to pick up when a vocal track is opened on the mixer, as there is a subtle background noise in that part of the earphone around where the singing enters. I don't notice this with as much ease on A+, as all the instruments seem to bleed together, at least when compared to Amarra. So, listening to Amarra, it is becoming easier for me to distinguish the special character the singer is bringing to each recording, even on different tracks of the same artist. This includes intonation of different notes, the emotion behind the lyrics, things like that. I didn't get this quality with A+.
 
2. Instrument separation and detail are far superior on Amarra. (I already stated this above, but the difference is becoming more marked to me as I continue to listen).
 
3. Before I thought bass was lacking in Amarra compared to A+, but I'm pretty sure this is because it is less boomy. I find this quality of A+ to be distracting. All in all, the bass is just more articulate and natural with Amarra. No bleed here, throughout any of the frequencies.
 
4. It really sounds like all of the sounds in a song, while using Amarra, are emanating from one source - the grain of recording equipment. While listening with A+, I don't get the feeling I'm listening to something that was recording and mixed into one sonic whole. Rather, I feel like I'm being bombarded with sounds from very close. I guess this would give the music more of a live effect, but I don't prefer it - it sounds bloated and immature in comparison.
 
More to come - I hope someone besides me is finding this useful!

 
I agree with everything you have said in both posts - Amarra IS grainy compared to Audirvana Plus (I prefer 1.5.9 - seems less "antiseptic" to me) and Audirvana "clings together" better, but Amarra has amazing bass depth and power, especially when used with its EQ on the Audeze 2 preset ... tightens the bass nicely - more damped but also adds a slight boost (yummy!).  Pleasingly warm and limpid with great nuance and detail.  Audirvana Plus sounds almost as good (better in some ways), but it only sound unequivocally better when it plays SACD ISO files, which Amarra can't play, yet.

 

[MacedonianHero]

   
I agree with everything you have said in both posts - Amarra IS grainy compared to Audirvana Plus (I prefer 1.5.9 - seems less "antiseptic" to me) and Audirvana "clings together" better, but Amarra has amazing bass depth and power, especially when used with its EQ on the Audeze 2 preset ... tightens the bass nicely - more damped but also adds a slight boost (yummy!).  Pleasingly warm and limpid with great nuance and detail.  Audirvana Plus sounds almost as good (better in some ways), but it only sound unequivocally better when it plays SACD ISO files, which Amarra can't play, yet.

Agreed completely. I had Amarra HiFi and preferred Audirvana+, but with Amarra 3.0, the differences are quite striking (in a good way).

 

[bboysnick]

Hi, can you provide any comparison between Amarra 3 and Pure Music 2 by any chances? The latter is what I've been using so far but everyone is saying Amarra is the god here. Thanks

 

[bpcans]

I'm presently using Audirvana+ as my music player in my MBP. It was quite and upgrade from just iTunes, Bitperfect, VOX, and FLAC+. Amarra 3.0 has me intrigued to say the least. Can't wait to A/B Amarra and Audirvana.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Hi, can you provide any comparison between Amarra 3 and Pure Music 2 by any chances? The latter is what I've been using so far but everyone is saying Amarra is the god here. Thanks

Sorry, I don't have Pure Music 2.

 

[bpcans]

Agreed completely. I had Amarra HiFi and preferred Audirvana+, but with Amarra 3.0, the differences are quite striking (in a good way).

MH, do you feel Amarra's better overall presentation and sound when compared to Audirvana+ justifies it's steeper price point?

 

[MacedonianHero]

MH, do you feel Amarra's better overall presentation and sound when compared to Audirvana+ justifies it's steeper price point?

I think so. The difference isn't huge in total $. Funny, I preferred Audirvana+ over Amarra HiFi, but the 3.0 just took it over the top for me. Plus, for Amarra HiFi owners, there was a discount available...so it was basically the same price.

 

[bpcans]

I think so. The difference isn't huge in total $. Funny, I preferred Audirvana+ over Amarra HiFi, but the 3.0 just took it over the top for me. Plus, for Amarra HiFi owners, there was a discount available...so it was basically the same price.

Thanks MH. Only way to find out for sure is to demo the Amarra 3.0 player. Now I've got something to do while my gf mows the lawn.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Thanks MH. Only way to find out for sure is to demo the Amarra 3.0 player. Now I've got something to do while my gf mows the lawn.

Let' us know what you think!
 
BTW, we've lived here for 13 years and my wife has NEVER mowed the lawn.