Pure Music vs Amarra?

[j20056]

If Pure Music works as advertised, PM is 20% the cost of Amarra. What am I missing?

 

[Mr.C]

They sound different. There are still mysteries in this world... And I would (and only did) pay $79 for Amarra Junior because I have no hi rez.

 

[bluedy1]

I will evaluate Pure Music this week-end: does it really contribute?

 

[Lars]

Both Amarra and Pure Music offer features and sound quality that surpass iTunes. Take your time and try both programs.

 

[4est]

You may want to add the free program "Play" to the list as well. To make matters worse, you ought to re-try them when ever there is an new version. The sonics seem to change with revisions...

 

[bluedy1]

PM's ergonomics are not pretty. I was ripping cd's this morning and trying to listen to music using PM: strange things happened: stops after one track was played if I changed screen,the track not being registered as being played... Not as smooth as Itunes by far.Regarding sound: some distorsion, sound apparently not being clean.

(played on DAC202/LEBEN/MAGICO V2)

 

[Lars]

Pure Music was not designed to play music and use iTunes to rip at the same time. There is no distortion with Pure Music. Your settings may be a problem with volume overload, but who knows?

 

Try playing Amarra and iTunes with the iTunes volume turned up and tell me what you hear.

 

 

 

[bluedy1]

My macbbok has only 2 gb of ram and it may explain some troubles.

 

 

[bluedy1]

Lars, you are right: to rip at the same time was certainly not a good idea. Regarding volume Itunes volume is always at the highest and I leave the PM volume at its default setting (something like 85%).

Now I have had one evening of playing music and I am very happy to say that PM is a clear improvement above Itunes for playing music.

Using my 4 favorite cd's of this year (Thirteen Senses/Invitation; I Love you but I have chosen darkness/According to Plan; Melodramatic Sauna/Les fleurs; An Pierle/Helium Sunset)I experienced 3 things: the voices are more natural, 3-dimensional (itunes look flat in comparison)and the delineation of information gives more clarity to every instrument. A genuine discovery. As much as I consider the interface to miss the sleekiness of itunes and not to perfectly integrate, when it comes to music, and this is the most important, it is a wonderful improvement. I did not expect that.

It encourages me to look at the settings.

 

[I. G.]

Yeah, the user interface is typical programmer-designed. But if you overcome this inconvenience it can be rewarding. I stopped at the point where PM is louder than iTunes and it's not easy to match the volumes for comparison especially in LiM mode. With Amarra it was somehow easier to compare. But definitely both change the sound.

 

[j20056]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't understand the comment above "But definitely both change the sound"?

I thought the purpose of going computer digital is to forever have a lossless and 100% transparent transport. I can obviously understand that a DAC and everything downstream can add "color", but why would a software transport do any of that?

Obviously, as an extreme and dumb example, there could be a hard-coded EQ that sounds "flattering" as lower volumes, like a loudness button, but barring various algorithms, dithering and else, it shouldn't.

In fact, isn't the point of a "perfect" software transport to sound exactly like the one next door?

I must be missing something... To me, the only value of a software transport is the quality of the user interface and so on. Given the quality if iTunes, I can understand why some software wants to piggy-back on iTunes, like the two softs we're discussing on this thread. But then why wanting to pay more than $100 for it, since the user interface is "borrowed" from iTunes?

 

 

[barrows]

yeah, I understand your confusion! The fact appears to be that no one really understands certain things about computer audio (this should not be that surprising, as there are plenty of things about audio in general that no one understands). The fact is that iTunes is bit perfect when properly configured (volume at 100%, equalizers and enhancers disabled). Amarra and Pure Music are also bit perfect when run with volume control at 0 dB, and equalizers off. Theoretically, a digital engineer would tell us that these programs should all sound the same-but the fact is they do not sound the same, and it is clear in my opinion that both Amarra and Pure Music sound better than iTunes.

There are threads on these forums where people discuss (speculate) what might cause this difference in sound, but from what I have read, no one really knows the technical answer.

I would suggest that you demo Pure Music and Amarra for yourself, you will be surprised by the improvement in sound quality, and this experience will change your view of computer audio forever (re the idea of "perfect").

 

[bluedy1]

Perfectly said Barrows! I fully agree.

 

1- Audio is full of unknown

2- Pure Music gets much closer to the music than Itunes

 

[Nyal Mellor]

No contest for me, Pure Music sounds better and has much more functionality - especially the ability to include an audio unit plugin for EQ. I use Flux epure. I also think the volume control sounds better than the one on the Weiss.

 

[extracampine]

I'd love to see the results of some double-blind tests here. I too find it hard to imagine that different software can produce an audible difference. I remember trying Mediamonkey vs XXHighend some months ago (with MM using the Otachan ASIO plugin), and actually preferred Mediamonkey.

 

[barrows]

there is no need for a DBT here, the differences are quite large and easy to hear.

It is free and easy for you to try either PM or Amarra for yourself; all it would take is ten minutes of listening comparisons for any doubts you might have to vanish.

 

[Ajax]

I agree with Barrows, I have been trialing Pure Music for the past week and found it to be a major improvement. As per an earlier post - voices are more natural and iTunes sounds flat in comparison i.e. the music has more "vitality".

 

For just over $100 it is imo a no brainer addition to any iTunes based system.

 

 

[j20056]

I guess I am naively disappointed that there even *is* a choice to make. I was hoping it was a matter of look and feel, but they all would sound *exactly* the same, being BIT accurate, barring EQ, dithering and other processing that I have no intention to perform or use.

Having said that, this is apparently not the case, so I now *must* go through this evaluation as well. I installed both apps, I hate the PM look, it's atrocious looking, but whatever, I can get over that.

What is the view regarding SongBird? This is the one I currently use, and despite lack of iTunes integration, it has good interface. To be honest, I couldn't care less about iTunes integration. I sort of like using a different system for hi-res music as it's easier to keep folders cleanly separated.

 

[cfmsp]

"Dan...there is no need for a DBT here, the differences are quite large and easy to hear."

 

Barrows, is it really fair (or accurate) to say that "the differences are quite large and easy to hear" in another's system given that we have NO clue as to how the differences manifest?

 

I"d never assume that someone else should/would/could hear what I hear (in my system) with respect to software players. This seems especially true given that the known (if you'll allow me to use that word) factors that seem to impact the sound (of software players) are system specific, e.g., memory, SSD vs. HD, play from RAM, etc.

 

Neither do I assume that everyone who reports hearing a difference could pass a DBT. Indeed, quite the contrary, I imagine that a significant percentage of people who claim to hear a difference could NOT pass a DBT.

 

Thus, it is extremely important that people (as Barrows says) try the software in their own system, and remain somewhat skeptical about the claimed benefits from use in other's systems.

 

just a different view,

 

clay

 

PS, Play is a free player that could be auditioned as well, against Pure Music and Amarra.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

You have a good point-My intent was to get the OP to give it a try himself, as Demos of PM and Amarra are free, and very easy to do.

Clearly, in my system, even limited by the optical output of a MacBook, Amarra and PM sound way better than iTunes-enough so as to make me feel that iTunes is "broken".

Would I "pass" a DBT? Who knows, I would not even try, as my feelings are that such ways of attempting to evaluate music playback systems are entirely flawed and offer no validity whatsoever. No, I am not going to get into a debate on blind testing here, my views on this subject are clearly stated on the thread regarding blind testing already.

 

[cfmsp]

 

"No, I am not going to get into a debate on blind testing here, my views on this subject are clearly stated on the thread regarding blind testing already."

 

agreed and understood.

 

Neither am I suggesting use of DBT, but rather I was pointing out the likely (IMO) lack of any type of rigor around the selection of players that Dan seems to be asking for. This seems especially likely to be true given the (relatively) inexpensive Pure Music and the free Play.

 

As you recall, there was a LOT of angst (about whether there was a difference or not) back when the choices were only kilobuck Amarra or iTunes.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

No worries. I understand the "angst" and I feel it as well! I have a hard time believing there is a sonic difference with these software players, only because I like to understand technically what is responsible for good sound (in general). But with these players, there appears to be no technical grounds to explain why/how they improve sonic performance (yet). The speculation that has been offered does not satisfy me at all (smaller processor footprint, less RFI, better math, etc) because it is really hard to fathom what could be affecting the sound other than uncorrupted data (bit perfect) and jitter. Nothing about these software players has any effect on either of these things.

Nevertheless, as soon as I auditioned Amarra (and later PM) I had to immediately accept the fact that these players do effect sonic performance. I encourage anyone who is skeptical or curious to demo different software players-if only demoing different DACs were so easy!

 

[orca99]

After having installed Pure Music couple of days earlier, i listened to a track by Jason Mraz, and couldent stop myself dancing......I know this is not the most scientific way to evaluate a hi-fi, but i find the music much more present or alive in the room, than when Itunes plays the same tunes.

 

No experience with Amarra, but Itunes can certainly be improved.

 

 

 

[roscoeiii]

And then there is the mystery beta software that has been intermittently mentioned on some forums here. Many prefer it to anything out there on Mac. Will it come out? If so, when? At what price? And with what sonic results? Oh the suspense....

 

[j20056]

My situation is that I have not yet purchased a DAC. I was hoping, and still so, that going the DAC route (probably Weiss DAC2) would make a huge sonic improvement from analog CD or iTunes ALAC.

Now, are the differences between say Amarra versus PM much less noticeable than the difference between CD and 24/96 or 24/192?

I guess I'm trying to zero in on the amount of "coloring", which removes fidelity, that these two software provide.

It sounds like, subjectively at least, either of Amaraa or PM with a good DAC would be in a different league than standard CD quality, so I'm probably worrying for no reason, because the choice between Amarra and PM is in a sense a "good problem to have".