Snow Leopard?

Richard Hi Amarra makes quite a noticeable difference on my system, I certainly wouldn't want not to have it, are you sure it is working, do the faders rise when Amarra is on ?
It only pays uncompresed files and not Apple Lossless.

Whats the new OS like I am off to get a copy nowish.

Come on.... seriously???

You actually think it sounds better? My lord. I cant believe I take people's advice on this forum.

I will assume the OP is joking, Onion style.

-p

Look in to my eye's , not around the eye's , look in to my eye's !

I have been running the appleseed on 10.6 for a few months but did not put it on my main media mac as I did not want to risk messes.

Certainly the OS has been rebuilt from the ground up in 64bit and this includes core audio which delivers the bits to the audio output.

As to if this sounds different well thats for others to decide, no way I am putting SL on my main media mac right now!

-p

Just so I'm clear. Are you:

1: Taking the piss because I suggested Snow Leopard iTunes might sound better than Leopard?
2: Taking the piss because I'm stating Amarra is definitely better than iTunes / Snow Leopard?
3: Both?

DHT - Agreed. I obviously wasn't too clear. I think Amarra still is better. I was holding off purchase until I upgraded - but now I'm going to purchase a copy.

Cheers

Richard

Richard,

Is it the case that the Core Audio changes in SL are closer to the Leopard with Amarra? I've not tried Amarra although I've read about it.

I've upgraded one of two identical Macs with SL and the upgraded one does have an improved sound. Switching the optical cable between the two is easy enough using same CDs ripped to apple lossless with identical audio settings.

Joe

Garyi

I've a couple of terabytes hanging off the Mac Mini. All upgraded without any problem. VNC much snappier - which is useful!

I'll I'll let you know if I see anything peculiar.

Cheers

Richard

Joe -

Thanks! I was looking for independent validation

Yes the SL upgrade definitely moves iTunes/Core in the direction of Amarra. But the Amarra software seems to have maintained its edge. It is better.

PAramus, I was on the apple seed for snow leopard so have had it installed for some months. I was and still am getting an issue connecting to shares and screen sharing (both crippling slow to connect) so am not upgrading until this is resolved.

Also I use XBMC and there is an issue with remote controls controlling both XBMC and other software at the same time in SL, so a defo no no for me.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
PAramus, I was on the apple seed for snow leopard so have had it installed for some months. I was and still am getting an issue connecting to shares and screen sharing (both crippling slow to connect) so am not upgrading until this is resolved.

You must have installed a buggy Snow Leopard version. There are some subtle differences wrt shares and screen sharing, but performance is definitely not an issue, I would say it is snapper.

I've also tested screen sharing and shares between two SL machines (Mini & laptop) - no issue / very snappy.

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
-p

Just so I'm clear. Are you:

1: Taking the piss because I suggested Snow Leopard iTunes might sound better than Leopard?
2: Taking the piss because I'm stating Amarra is definitely better than iTunes / Snow Leopard?
3: Both?

DHT - Agreed. I obviously wasn't too clear. I think Amarra still is better. I was holding off purchase until I upgraded - but now I'm going to purchase a copy.

Cheers

Richard

#1 i guess.

QTT, apple seeds come directly from apple, not from bit torrent. My problem is not mine alone. I believe they are working on it. Its not the end of the world but I do a lot of screen sharing etc and the perfromance boost is not enough on its own for me to risk my primary computer which delivers music, video and all sorts!

Is amara the same as iTunes only you have to pay $ 1495,- for it?? Or will there be a free version somewhere? ( where?? )

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Come on.... seriously???

You actually think it sounds better? My lord. I cant believe I take people's advice on this forum.

I will assume the OP is joking, Onion style.

-p

Patrick,
It does sound alot better.
Stu

quote:

Is amara the same as iTunes only you have to pay $ 1495,- for it?? Or will there be a free version somewhere? ( where??

There is a 'demo' version you can download, if you go to Sonic Studio Amarra.

quote:

Originally posted by munch:

quote:

Originally posted by pcstockton:
Come on.... seriously???

You actually think it sounds better? My lord. I cant believe I take people's advice on this forum.

I will assume the OP is joking, Onion style.

-p

Patrick,
It does sound alot better.
Stu

Can you explain in what way, e.g. bass, dynamics etc, and why exactly? I haven't done the upgrade yet so I'm curious know what to expect.

Did you do a direct comparison?

A friend mailed me yesterday to ask if i had got it yet?
He has two Macbooks. He loaded SL into one and played the same albums/rips on both.
The one with SL was much much better in all departments music replay wise.
He uses the same Macbooks and DAC as me and has a great system.
I trust his ears.If he says its better its better.
I have ordered SL it wont be here till next week.
Will post my thoughts then.
Stu

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
It does sound alot better.
Stu

Really? "A lot better"? Meaning you could pick out the Snow leopard's effects EVERY SINGLE TIME? It is that different? That the operating system can affect sound quality to this great degree is troublesome.

I thought Macs already offered the best playback. Now it is even better? What does that say about how it used to be?

Taking tweakery this far is hilarious to me. So does the mouse you use affect SQ? How about the hard drive? To even consider that the OS plays a part is laughable.

But whatever.... Enjoy the Snow Leopard.

quote:

Originally posted by munch:
much much better in all departments music replay wise.

How exactly? What is it doing differently now than whatever you had before?

-p

PCS your scepticism although robust is very odd coming from the man who says that you have to use a very specific set of 30 steps of instructions to get a perfect rip, that a PC sounds better than a mac and that a mac could never be used for music play back.

You sound blinkered, you are what is referred to as the anti fanbois. i.e. you rightly get pissed at apple people and so every thing apple by design is a *bad* thing (except of course for the products you own)

So here it is, a new OS that costs 25 bucks that is re written from the ground up for 64 bit, this includes the core audio.

So:
1. For ripping you need a 30 step programme using specific softwares to get audio that sounds right.
2. An OS written from the ground up including its audio engine could not possibly sound different

Please circle this square for me Patrick?*



*BTW I have not heard snow leopard doing audio in any real sense yet so have no opinion. I notice though that naim talk a lot about the software employed in their new DAC, what do you make of this Patrick, if the core engine of the software makes no difference to sound?

The thing about the old OS is it was designed to go in all Macs going back years.
The new SL OS is a true update for the newer Macs.
This is the reason people are finding all this extra space in there Macs when they load SL.
Its clearing all the old shite thats not needed.
And there is alot of it.
Shite gone = better music replay.
Happy days Patrick try a Mac.
Stu

Whoa whoa whoa Garyi.... I have NEVER once said a PC sounds better or worse than a Mac. Never. I dont believe it does.

I dont think iTunes delivers a proper rip although that is not a Mac thing. It applies to PCs as well. XLD is a fine ripper for Mac. Ive said it many times.

Also, i have NEVER said that EAC rips sound better than anything else. Please show me where i said anything like this. I said EAC rips allow you to correct the drive offset, produces logs, works in secure mode, produces cue files, handles pre-gap tracks etc..... None of which iTunes does, which is my reason for not using it.

I dont use itunes as a player because it doesn't handle FLAC, cant handle my library size, wont use my exisiting art etc.... that is all. I am sure it sounds IDENTICAL to Foobar, iTunes on PC with Amarra on a Mac, Winamp etc....

I am not the one who can hear the difference between WAV, ALAC and FLAC. Nor the levels of compression on FLAC. my threshold only goes are far as Lossless vs MP3. That I can hear everytime.

Regarding your two options, I am sure they would sound identical to me.

-patrick

i have a mac stu. I choose otherwise due to software, as you know. Foobar FLAC and EAC. thats all. otherwise I would happily use a mac or a PC or itunes on either.