Pure Music 1.6
Posted by: gav111n on 06 August 2010
I have tested the various incarnations of PM over the last several months. Each time, I had the feeling that it may be doing something but was not convinced that whatever was happening was better than iTunes (with memory play / HOG mode).
I upgraded my preamp a few weeks ago. Once the new pre had settled down I tried PM v1.45 for the free 7 days. It was obviously so much better than iTunes. At the end of the free period I could not go back to iTunes and bought a licence.
I then started playing around with the PM settings (well you have to don't you?) and quite liked the minor difference that upsampling brought (44.1kHz to 176.4kHz).
This week PM upgraded to v1.6. I have been really unhappy with the sound since the update. It is harsh with sibilance and lacking bass. I have just turned off upsampling and that has solved the problem. Now it is really great again. For me, a step up on v1.45.
Gavin.
Posted on: 06 August 2010 by James L
Gav
You have just spurred me into trying PM (again).
I gave Pure Vinyl a go about a year back but it was awfully clunky so I gave up.
I just downloaded PM and viola, the install and interface couldn't be simpler.
Looking forward to firing up the MAC/DAC for a listen!
Posted on: 06 August 2010 by js
Sounds good. I thought it a bit heavy when I had a quick listen in the past.
Posted on: 06 August 2010 by james n
1.6 good. no change in SQ over 1.45 but stability now just about perfect. Now all we need is integer mode
Posted on: 06 August 2010 by James L
Hmmm. After a one hour session with my newly installed PM1.6 (trial), I'm in two minds.
PM vs itunes; PM seems to take away some vitality in the music. PM sounds a bit 'sweeter' but also a tad 'smaller'.
I am running a MBP, AIFF, into nDAC via OptiChord. Things might be better for PM with a Bridge/Hi-Face et al but in the context of my set up, i-tunes is preferred.
However as with all things digital, you really need to live-with-it for a while so I'll run PM until the trial runs out and see what to from there.
Posted on: 06 August 2010 by James L
er, after more listening, on hi-res files, PM is grrreat.
Apart from the user friendly auto switching of the sample rate, PM definitely has it over itunes on hi-res.
Posted on: 07 August 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by James L:
I am running a MBP, AIFF, into nDAC via OptiChord. Things might be better for PM with a Bridge/Hi-Face et al
Most definitely. Get your transfer optimised, use HOG mode properly and PM is much better.
Joe
Posted on: 07 August 2010 by james n
and make sure memory play is on
Posted on: 07 August 2010 by gav111n
quote:
PM vs itunes; PM seems to take away some vitality in the music. PM sounds a bit 'sweeter' but also a tad 'smaller'
James,
I had a similar opinion of PM with my previous preamp. I sort of heard a difference and when I went back to iTunes, I preferred iTunes for the reasons that you mention.
I tested PM 1.45 with a new preamp and my preference was reversed, iTunes sounded somewhat fizzy and flat and annoying compared with PM. I put this down to the preamp resolution rather than the version of PM, but I don’t know. I did not try PM 1.45 with my old preamp. So far 1.6 feels like a further improvement over 1.45.
I am not saying that you need a better preamp. It just shows me how system dependent things are.
Gav.
Posted on: 07 August 2010 by js
quote:
Originally posted by james n:
1.6 good. no change in SQ over 1.45 but stability now just about perfect. Now all we need is integer mode
I'll take your word here. I don't know if hog was used etc in the setup I heard though it was on guys Mac that should have a clue. I really need to score a MAC for a few to play around again and be sure about some of this.
Posted on: 07 August 2010 by Briz Vegas
I am running Macbook Pro 4gb - Weiss INT202- Naim DAC with the trial PM. Very happy with it so far but I wish it was gapless between tracks. What is it with computer audio that such things are not automatic. Why would I want a gap between tracks.
I agree with the comment about upsampling mode not being as good for ripped CDs. non-unsampled sounds better - I have been told that the best way to upsample is to convert the file, not do it on the fly (I have not tried this yet but will most likely give it a go at some point)
I hope to have some hi-er def files very shortly (24bit 88.2)to try.
PS - every once in a while my ipod remote seems to not want to play tracks. This mey be an apple thing or a PM thing. With a bit of mucking about it plays ball but it is less than ideal. When it works (most of the time)I love the interface via the ipod touch.
The fact that the bottom button on the front face of my 4 month old ipod touch it starting to play up big time is less than satisfactory however. Looks like I get to test out Apple's warranty service.
Posted on: 07 August 2010 by js
Gapless is nice when music is written that way but in theory it needs another buffer which may not be optimum sonically. Perhaps PM could manipulate hog mode to do gapless with what is already in use.
Posted on: 08 August 2010 by Briz Vegas
Given the choice the quality is more important than a few gaps.
Maybe the win win solution is to somehow join the tracks where gaps mess up the musical flow. Less convenient for track skipping but it would be nice to have the choice (unless the buffer size is the problem).
Posted on: 08 August 2010 by james n
quote:
Very happy with it so far but I wish it was gapless between tracks
It is if you tick the right boxes
Posted on: 08 August 2010 by Joe Bibb
quote:
Originally posted by Briz Vegas:
I am running Macbook Pro 4gb - Weiss INT202- Naim DAC with the trial PM. Very happy with it so far but I wish it was gapless between tracks. What is it with computer audio that such things are not automatic. Why would I want a gap between tracks.
I agree with the comment about upsampling mode not being as good for ripped CDs. non-unsampled sounds better - I have been told that the best way to upsample is to convert the file, not do it on the fly (I have not tried this yet but will most likely give it a go at some point)
I hope to have some hi-er def files very shortly (24bit 88.2)to try.
PS - every once in a while my ipod remote seems to not want to play tracks. This mey be an apple thing or a PM thing. With a bit of mucking about it plays ball but it is less than ideal. When it works (most of the time)I love the interface via the ipod touch.
The fact that the bottom button on the front face of my 4 month old ipod touch it starting to play up big time is less than satisfactory however. Looks like I get to test out Apple's warranty service.
Briz,
If you use Memory play, any tracks or albums that you have tagged 'gapless' in iTunes will play that way. What you will notice is the tracks take a few secs to load, then begin. Doesn't matter which track you select. Any album I have that is either live, or has a couple of tracks that link without a gap - I have tagged gapless. Never have a problem with that and it is far easier to me than compiling playlists as per Amarra's method.
The iTouch can become problematic if you skip or change tracks, just as it's moving to the next one on the album you are playing. Once confused by that it usually means you have to press play before a selected track from then on. This is cured if you quickly re-start PM/iTunes to re-make the link with the iTouch. I have found that making sure I select a new track or album promptly, before the next one begins avoids this problem altogether.
Joe
Posted on: 08 August 2010 by u5227470736789524
quote:
Originally posted by Briz Vegas:
Given the choice the quality is more important than a few gaps.
from iTunes:
To change many songs at once:
1. Command-click the songs (select all)
2. Choose File > Get Info
3. Click Options
4. Choose 'Yes' from the Gapless Album pop-up menu.
Hope that helps.
regards
Jeff A
Posted on: 10 August 2010 by Lee Henley
Hi
Anyone know how to get the tracks to repeat, for some reason with PM playing the tracks no longer repeat. I am playing PM in memory mode
Cheers
Lee
