Keeping my options open as I take my first steps in DA

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:

quote:

What does either version do that makes it worth the money

Sounds better according to some.

Jim

I don't think they are intended to sound different. The sonics are the same according to their web site. The mini is the cut down version leaving out some features (like automatic sample rate selection) and limited to 24/96. The full version supports higher res sample rates.

If, like me, you are not interested much in high res music (most of it being muzak or non classic classical) the mini could be of interest to audition if you have one of the supported DAC/codecs. For less than the price of a power cable.

Joe

It just improves everything, there is greater resolution, more texture, everything opens out,it only works with uncompressed files, I use AIFF , on my Mac and weiss dac.

Joe

I didn't mean the versions of Amarra sounded different I was responding to likesmusic question about Amarra in general.

I have dabbled with the "free" version and it does something but I haven't gotten around to "serious" evaluation of it. Definitely seems to be something there though.

I have an open mind on it. We are in new territory in many ways with digital audio and we have the naysayers camp who believe "bits are bits" and others who believe that may not be the case. I am an agnostic at this point.

Cheers

Jim

It has received an awful lot of flack from some quarters, but when you turn it off, standard itunes sounds a bit flat and dull in comparison.

Do you guys mean that it sounds better than an iTunes configured to be bit perfect playing lossless 44/16? Out of what - firewire? optical?

Listening to the exchange here I can't help but still wonder, how much tweaking can one do north of the DAC that results in audible gains??

We're still talking about 1s and 0s here right??

I spoke with a kid at the Apple Store today who had some streaming experience. After explaining what I'm trying to do, he talked me down from the Mac Mini and agreed there wasn't any significant audible gains to be had (compared to the AE) for the additional expenditure.

Yes,I use a Weiss DACII through firewire from my Mac, and Amarra is a definite improvement imho ,the chap who sells it over here, lends copies for evaluation, it is worth a listen if you use Itunes.

It's all very confusing. iTunes is said to be bit perfect. Amarra is said to be bit perfect. Yet apparently they sound different. If so, at least one must be wrong. Is anyone in a position to verify by measurement that either actually are bit perfect? Or is there some other cause of the difference? I notice for example that Amarra recommend turning off the Spellchecker for the best sound. Heaven help us if that is truly necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
It's all very confusing. iTunes is said to be bit perfect. Amarra is said to be bit perfect. Yet apparently they sound different. If so, at least one must be wrong. Is anyone in a position to verify by measurement that either actually are bit perfect? Or is there some other cause of the difference? I notice for example that Amarra recommend turning off the Spellchecker for the best sound. Heaven help us if that is truly necessary.

Bit perfect just means that the bits stored on these drive are sent to the SPDIF output. There is a lot more to digital transmission that that though. There are timing elements and it's said that things such as processor load, internal processing, system interrupts, etc. can all affect this. Both are bit perfect (iTunes was verified by Kent Poon though some disagree with his testing methods) but the analogue output of the DAC still seams to vary. I can't really explain why, just giving possible explanations why some people report differences. I'm not sure "different software sounds different while bit perfect" is any less (or more) believable than PSU affecting a digital output, or two digital cables (which both work perfectly) giving a different sound.

Eloise

I don't really fancy a system in which a spellchecker can affect the sound, for whatever reason!

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
I don't really fancy a system in which a spellchecker can affect the sound, for whatever reason!

Anything that a computer has to do, taking it's attention away from playing music will affect sound quality.

Eloise

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
I don't really fancy a system in which a spellchecker can affect the sound, for whatever reason!

Anything that a computer has to do, taking it's attention away from playing music will affect sound quality.

Eloise

I think that's a little too general. A modern personal computer can easily do Redbook CD quality audio processing in its spare time. There is more too it than just to assert that every other task affects sound quality.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Eloise:

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
I don't really fancy a system in which a spellchecker can affect the sound, for whatever reason!

Anything that a computer has to do, taking it's attention away from playing music will affect sound quality.

Eloise

I think that's a little too general. A modern personal computer can easily do Redbook CD quality audio processing in its spare time. There is more too it than just to assert that every other task affects sound quality.

It's not about overall processor speed. What (many) people don't understand is that a computer can only do one thing at once. While it appears that it's doing task A, B and C simultaneously (and it's actually doing 100s of things) it actually doing part of A then part of B then part of C, etc. And at any point process D may interrupt the main three tasks. It's this processing methodology which can cause subtle differences in playback quality. I'm not talkig the big noticable crackles and pauses in playback, but the little things people explain as the sound being veiled or one device delivering a bigger sound stage, etc.

Eloise

ps - yes it is general statement - but then I think the statement "any modern processor has enough power for redbook" is also very general. It's not about the processor - it's about how a modern OS and applications utilise it. I agree that in many circumstances no differences are heard; but I think the evidence that there is differences is too prevelent for it NOT to be possible.

It is complex. And you're right, a computer does one thing at a time. But a modern computer can easily get back every 1/44,000th of a second or so to do the trivial task of processing the next little piece of audio. Modern processors run at multiple gigahertz. Seriously, they can do our audio (almost) in their sleep.

I'm not suggesting that taking on some huge video rendering task or some-such in parallel wouldn't have an effect on SQ, but the assertion a few posts up was that spellchecker could somehow audibly affect audio quality. Not to my ears.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
It is complex. And you're right, a computer does one thing at a time...

Wrong! It is only true for a single processor machine which must be a couple of years old. Nowadays, most computers are dual core, quad core.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Dinh:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
It is complex. And you're right, a computer does one thing at a time...

Wrong! It is only true for a single processor machine which must be a couple of years old. Nowadays, most computers are dual core, quad core.

Fair call. Just makes my case a bit stronger.

It makes perfect sense to have a machine dedicated to audio, use a Mac mini ,and just use it for music.

winky, the claim about the spellchecker affecting sound-quality is not mine, it is Amarras. See here. They also claim that solid state drives sound smoother than hard disks, and NAS' sound grainy.

Hopefully the new NAIM DAC, which has a data buffer, will not be affected by such voodoo.

Most dacs have a data buffer.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Most dacs have a data buffer.

True; I should have said that it exploits it's RAM buffer to remove incoming jitter.

Well I've nothing more to add to the discussion on whether different software can sound different except to reiterate that it's about timing and the computer being available for audio on the exact 44100th second ticks.

Personally I don't here much difference in sound (I tried Amarra but it didn't work with my DAC/interface), but others report there are huge differences. Equally though I've never noticed the huge differences in sound produced by varying cables. But a large proportion of audiophiles say there is differences - even when the cables measure exactly the same to very high precision. So why shouldn't the computer system being used as a transport have similar "voodoo" influences?

The best thing to do is to try various software, most can be tried for free or minimal costs. IF you hear a difference, then use the one which sounds best, if YOU don't hear a difference, be happy.

Eloise

Eloise ,which dac/inteface do you use?

Eloise, if someone tried to sell me some Photo Album software and a printer, and they told me I needed to turn the spellchecker off to get better colours, or they told me that the pictures would print grainier if I stored them on a NAS, I just wouldn't be interested in the software/printer combination. In the analogue domain many things can be expected to legitimately affect the end result but not in the digital domain. If changing the mains cable on your printer caused your pictures to print differently, wouldn't you take the printer back rather than try an endless succession of mains cables?

Yes, cable dressing, power leads with wobbly pins, two power supplies for a cd player, what nonsense!

quote:

Originally posted by likesmusic:
Eloise, if someone tried to sell me some Photo Album software and a printer, and they told me I needed to turn the spellchecker off to get better colours, or they told me that the pictures would print grainier if I stored them on a NAS, I just wouldn't be interested in the software/printer combination. In the analogue domain many things can be expected to legitimately affect the end result but not in the digital domain. If changing the mains cable on your printer caused your pictures to print differently, wouldn't you take the printer back rather than try an endless succession of mains cables?

But printing a photo is not a time critical task.

Passing data via SPDIF IS time critical.

As I say ... it just seams strange that people will take without (much) questioning, the fact that their Naim system works best when cables are dressed properly, etc. but suggest that a process on their computer which interrupts the main task (i.e. playing the music) can cause a loss of quality (NOT drop outs, etc) then you get a big backlash!

I'm not saying I agree with everything Amarra says without questioning it, or that everyone will notice differences between SSD and HDD, NAS, having spellcheck running, etc ... but it's not as simple a task as you are making out.

Eloise