I have experimented extensively with Amarra, and wouldn't be without it.
The best solution I found was to use a powerful Mac (more power is a good thing) with 8GB of RAM (more RAM is a good thing), Amarra/iTunes, and outputting through an Empirical Offramp 3 and an excellent USB cable (I like the Offramp as it allows me a world of DAC choices).
I also found that with my 24/96 DAC, I was best to convert all my files to 24/96 and store them at that resolution, uncompressed. Its a bit like the idea of feeding your LCD with a file that matches its natural resolution. This takes load off both the Mac (no unpacking of ALAC files on the fly), and off the DAC (no real-time upsampling to do). Both can then work more accurately. And you really should dedicate a Mac to the task, not use it for anything else.
Peoples' preferences about upsampling versus 'native' blends/confuses two different issues. Upsampling, if done well can be very beneficial, up to a point (which depends on your DAC chip), but doing it in real time taxes your DAC's performance. I use AIFF as it can handle tags etc, unlike WAV, and use SampleManager software for the conversion to 24/96.
Remember that the digital to analog conversion essentially upsamples in the way that it joins the dots in the analog domain between the discrete samples. Different algorithms for joining the dots sound different, even though the imaginary data is supposedly beyond our hearing range. There is a trade-off between how much of the imaginary data is done in the digital domain (upsampling) and how much is done by the DAC process. Doing it offline is a good thing as I have said before, but there is a limit to how high you should upsample - mainly based on whether your DAC works well (or at all) at the higher bit rate. |
HeyMikey, I am using Amarra mini at this stage but also ran the full version for a month's trial before deciding. I may upgrade to the full version later, but its only advantages for me would be the higher sampling than 96kHz and I am currently limited to 96kHz by both my DAC and the Offramp. I note that Dan Lavry holds strongly to the view that upsampling to 96kHz is still better than upsampling to 192kHz, so I am not fretting about that one.
I converted my files using Sample Manager, which you can find at http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/samplemanager/. Use the iZotope options for resampling and redithering. iZotope is the best sounding set of algorithms that I have tried, and it seems that many in the industry use it.
The redithering to 24 bit provided the most significant improvement, more so than the upsampling.
The hassle with Sample Manager is that you can only batch convert around 100 files at a time or some cache fills up and the program has to be restarted.
It was recommended to me that the best process is to redither to 24 bits first, and resample second - which I just accepted and didn't test myself.
I recommend you make yourself a 24 bit version of a few songs, a 96 kHz version and a 24/96 version and then compare them with a 16/44.1 version of the file. Trying this out for myself with a DAC that upconverts to 96kHz, I preferred the 24/96 file. Trying this with a NOS DAC where the sampling rate is switchable between 44.1, 48, 88, and 96, I also preferred the 24/96 file.
For those that are interested in such things, I do employ double blind tests routinely, but in a way that is helpful as opposed to confusing - but to describe it here would be a long post. |
Kana813, you need to use a suitable way of getting the bits out of the Macbook or else using Amarra is pointless. An asynchronous USB Dac, an Empirical Audio interface, a Lynx card etc. If you don't then you won't hear any of the benefit of using Amarra. The jittery output will render it moot. |
What was the asynchronous USB to SPDIF convertor Kana813? I am not aware of any other than the Wavelength Wavelink. There is a Musiland but on examining the board it is clear that it cannot be asynchronous, despite the claims. I would be very keen on getting one if there truly is one on the market. The Wavelength one isn't available yet I don't think.
I don't share your faith in the Genesis Digital lens rendering jitter not to be an issue, it is just a PLL device, but if you are right that it does then of course Amarra would make no difference, and you could use any old PC or Mac you like with any old crappy cable you like to feed it. |
I have owned 2 Genesis Digital Lenses Kana813 so you lost the bet. I will have a look at the ART Legato. I have a V3 Cosecant from Wavelength, which uses asynchronous USB, and find its performance is affected by the computer used (and Amarra), but it is pretty effective. Having the ART Legato would enable me to use a wider range of DACs, like the Offramp does. I will be interested in comparing the Legato and Offramp. |
Just noticed the Legato is constrained to 44.1. That's a shame, but at $500 will get one anyway. Thanks Kana813. |
PS Audio don't have any dealers in this part of the world and I have found that PS Audio don't respond to email inquiries unfortunately. The Perfect Wave DAC would be interesting with the ethernet bridge. It will be interesting to see whether the very promising idea of ethernet transport lives up to its potential when done by an audiophile firm - as opposed to the just OK efforts of Logitech and Sonos. |
I guess because the Mac audio stack is better than the Windows one, its a genuine multi-tasking OS and even without Amarra they sound better. This isn't about finding another use for your PC, it is about dedicating and optimising a computer to serving a digital music stream. Why not buy the better product for the task? |
Blindjim, you have accused me of a few things, and with no justification. What is it you have to hide? The statement that bits is bits does say it all. Timing of those bits is critical to great sound and I am surprised there are still people that don't get that.
Let's take just one of your accusations - that I am biased towards Macs. I have owned computers since the first PC in 1980 and the first Mac I purchased was about six months ago I think. I am typing this post on a PC, because I like it better than the Mac. I have always very much disliked Macs as I am an old DOS-head who knows how to wring every last bit of performance out of a PC and I am pretty ignorant when it comes to Macs. Those are facts. The only reason why I have a Mac in the house is that I had just spent months comparing different PC builds, file format and software player combinations, including the cMP builds, and then tried a bog standard Mac and was utterly surprised to hear what a Mac could do without breaking a sweat. Not anywhere near perfect but detail resolution, dynamics and PRAT were superior to any iteration of PC I had tried to date. So much so that it was screamingly obvious that the Mac had something very important going for it. That fairly standard Mac did in fact suffer a bit of glare compared with the PC and so I set out to see what could be done to remove it.
This is a forum Blindjim - a place where people state their opinions without the need to state their scientific evidence, or have to repeatedly say IMO ad nauseum. Your attack of me for stating my opinion says a lot about you buddy. Your accusations of bias and some percuniary motive show you up for what you are. No I don't sell Macs. Do you accuse everyone that has an opinion that is different to yours of being a vendor of what they like?
I stated my opinion on my conclusions about what sounded best to me following man months of effort to try just about everything I could. You stated your opinion, not about equipment, but of me. Where do you get the right to do that Blindjim. You don't know me or anything about me. Search my posts and you will see I have declared my interest as a designer and marketer of cables. I refrain from commenting on cables in any way that might be a conflict of interest. I do not have anything to do with any computer audio products. At one point I looked at doing that but have decided against it - so I feel I should be allowed to post my opinions without personal attacks.
Lets just take one last point from your rant. You state you disagree with me that we should attempt to create a sound system in its own right. I believe that deciding an USB device should perform well on anyone's PC is counter to just about anything else audiophiles seem to agree on, therefore I use a Mac for music (only) and PCs for everything else. Your position is that that is unreasonable. Do you, Blidjim, insist that your speakers should be good plant stands too, use your DVD player as a CD transport because they jolly well should be able to do both jobs, insist on a teflon coating on your amps so that the fried eggs don't stick? So why insist that computer audio should be dumbed down to run on your workhorse, general purpose PC? |
I have to say I am a bit stunned at how expressing opinions on Audiogon that others don't like or don't agree with gets personal attacks, accusations of bias, of not having actually heard what I have expressed a view on. Is this normal here? Why is it not easy to just express a contrary view without making it personal?
I apologise to you Blindjim for getting angry at your attacks. I will try harder to keep my shirt on. Please make an effort too. |
Chadeffect, you can also tweak the Mac (much as I haven't enjoyed that much - Apple does not make it easy), and with the latest versions of OS X, you can install it on a PC build. I do agree that the way Mac vertically integrates the OS and the box is a pain as none of the standard Macs are ideal. I came to the conclusions that I did by trying OS X on similar, and sometimes the same hardware as the hardware that worked well with PC builds. That may not be practical for the average joe - but that is true of the better PC builds too, and arguably true for all high end computer audio at the moment. There is a long way between the best builds and plug and play, sadly |
To answer your first para Tbg - familiarity and control are the main reasons - but also the wealth of free applications for the PC. Now I am learning more about Unix I can see that you can get a lot of control with Macs too. But I can't help myself, I prefer to build my own Mac than buy a Mac - I, of course, use the retail software. In particular, having zero moving parts (the music is stored externally) and a fair amount of power and 8GB of RAM is beneficial to sound and no Mac quite meets that spec.
On the software availability side, for example, I use a DSP board I have heavily modified out of a Rane RPM 26z in a system where I am designing an open baffle speaker. The Rane can do a lot of DSP stuff, but I really just use it for the digital cross-overs. The Rane software is just brilliant for real time design changes from the listening chair via wifi and a mouse. It is great for hearing immediately the change from 12dB/octave slopes to 24dB, for example. But it only runs on a PC.
Similarly I use TrueRTA for in-room measurements - free on a PC. Were I to use onboard crossover software on the Mac and output through a Lynx card, again, there is readily available software for the PC. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places for Mac software, maybe its there and it is just expensive, or maybe I should look at Parallels.
But the more I use Unix, the more I like it, I have to admit. I was put off initially by Macs because Apple wants to make all your decisions for you, but I am learning how to get under the hood now. |
Oh my goodness. There is just too much irrelevant BS there to respond to mate. Let's get back to topic.
In my experience I have gotten better sound from MACs than PCs, despite being prejudiced against MACs. Particularly when Amarra is brought into the equation - provided you use an appropriate device for getting the bits off the computer. And I have found the MAC is better to be fairly powerful and have 8GB of RAM. All of this is IMHO of course.
Now its your turn. This time, instead of wondering about my biases and motives, and my insistence on spelling using English rather than an American version of it, how about you let us know what you think sounds best. |
|
Interesting point about optical. Optical has a bad rap based partly on early poor implementations and partly on ignorance. The main issue is reflections and so there are many small issues to deal with when constructing a good optical cable.
Just as people come to something new like computer audio and assume one implementation will be as good as another, the same applies to something like an optical cable and ignorance leads them to believe they will all sound the same, so they only try a cheapie. The terminations and connections really have to be done with high precision to avoid reflections, and the outer layer of the cable must not reflect light, and you should try to avoid the cable going through tight turns. But done right they are, as you say, superior to using wire. Cleaner and faster.
You have got me thinking about Firewire now. |
Sorry Chadeffect, we must have posted at the same time and then I got distracted. I agree that it is hard to see the current state of the art of computer audio being at all mature, and that is one of my concerns about Amarra. Right now it is worth the price, for what it does, but who knows whether something might hit the market for under $100 or even free that can do most of what it does. The good news is that being immature computer audio will only get better.
I agree big-time with one of your other points too that close to the best with an interface that fits your needs is better than accepting a poor interface. One of the things most people that use computer audio talk about is how they get more out of a large collection when they have a computer audio interface then when they have to find, handle, catalog etc physical CDs.
The interface I prefer is Foobar, and I don't like iTunes at all. And interfaces like J River make me really angry, especially since its sound is so good. But I am getting so much better sound with iTunes/Amarra that I am putting up with it for now.
My feeling is that ethernet will dominate in time, and that its implementation will get to a point where the precise setup or flavour of the computer will become unimportant. This will mean DACs will be more like the Sonos and Squeezebox but with much better interfaces, or perhaps the player interface could still reside on the computer because of its interface superiority, and it will signal the DAC what to play. For now the ethernet interfaces aren't that flash given their theoretical advantage. Perhaps the PS DAC with ethernet bridge will be the first of the new breed.
Can I ask what pro audio music interfaces are worth having a look at? |
Absolutely agree re online HD libraries. The problem is there are so many firms that need to change their models for this to happen. It ought to be here now given the capabilities of the technologies. But I know from first hand experience those that have dominated the existing value chains that are converging are more frightened than excited by the possibilities.
In one of your earlier posts, and I may have misinterpreted it, you made a reference to pro audio software interfaces. I am aware of a lot of the hardware. For example, I am aware of the Lynx card, but not so much aware of the software you might put on the computer to take full advantage of it. For example, digital crossover software to make use of the computing power and all those output channels - I am a real convert to active speakers.
I usually rip music to FLAC, as my preferred storage standard. I then convert to AIFF 24/96, and play those, keeping two copies of the FLACs as a backup. This is probably a sign that I still haven't converted my thinking over to the Mac world. I inherently don't like proprietary models when an open model of equivalent quality is available, but it is not entirely rational - ALAC files can be readily turned into an open format without loss at any time.
I keep looking at the DCS stuff but have never taken the plunge. Right now the top USB stuff sounds better to me than the ethernet stuff, but I can't help feeling ethernet will become the dominant transmission standard for anything. It is a steamroller with a lot of momentum and has all the attributes one would want. The reason why USB is dominating is that the R&D to get it to perform is so much less and audio firms are small. In the end, the standard that wins is the one that attracts the R&D, not the 'better' technology, so maybe the start USB is getting will be unassailable in the audio world. Both Firewire and ethernet are harder for small audio firms to develop for.
I was originally very resistant to Amarra. I didn't like spending that much on software, there was little info on how it worked and getting support seemed to be a bit of a lottery. But with all the tweaks I now accept as being part of the recipe for great computer audio today, Amarra does something that none of the others quite do, and so I now consider it to be essential - for how long, though, is the big question - as you say. |
Tbg, I loved how Foobar was so customisable so that you could pretty much make it work however you wanted. It is certainly not friendly till you familiarise yourself with the myriad of options to customise, and that takes time. I have never had a problem with stability, so that is a new one.
As I have said above, I have a 24/96 DAC too and find that converting the files to 24/96 AIFF, so that my DAC doesn't do anything more than straight D to A conversion, is a good thing. DAC chips are not perfectly accurate in their conversion and they get less accurate, the more work they have to do, so while there can be a benefit in upsampled files, there is a dis-benefit of asking your DAC chip, or DAC, to do it at the same time. This is one of the reasons , for example, why say DCS do the upsampling in a separate box. |
Hi Dan (Drubin). I have continued to read your posts, even though I stopped contributing here a long time ago. I guess I am back, particularly to discuss computer audio, which interests me a lot these days - and active open baffle speakers.
Chadeffect, I had a quick look at devices that would convert Firewire to AES/EBU and found the Weiss too pricey to consider. At the other end of the spectrum I can see affordable units like M-Audio. Is there a middle ground worth considering? But maybe I should keep my eye out for a DCS DAC. My assumption is that a Delius with Firewire. Is there anything I should look out when for buying one on Audiogon? |
Hmm, have you seen the price of my cables?? We have really suffered at the hands of the gold price, and our prices for our top end cables, which have a lot of gold in them has rocketed up alarmingly.
Since the computer is the master clock then the cable isn't transferring data in block mode, as it does in most other applications, and so the delicate clock timing has to be transmitted by the Firewire cable. So it suffers exactly the same issues as good versus bad SPDIF cables, for example. So the 'quality' of the cable matters, but more or less so depending on what it is feeding.
The benefits of Firewire and USB over SPDIF or AES/EBU are that the signal does not have to be locked onto so tightly, and Firewire is usually going to get a lower jitter signal out of the computer than USB. |
There are some cynical repackaging jobs that go on, for sure, especially with cabling. Zero offence taken.
For me, I was a long time member here under the name Redkiwi, till I got to the point where my own cables were better to my ears than my favourite brand Jena Labs. So at that point I more or less stopped posting here and began producing my cables in the weekends. At that stage I bought everything in, but the cables were unique in terms of using what I call our antipodal geometry - very simple but effective. Then I researched every part of the cable and developed my own view as to what sounded best. So we now make our own wire, make the insulation and make the sleeving. The only thing we don't make from raw materials is the connector - though that will be next.
It has been maybe an obsession, but definitely based on my enthusiasm for audio and my love of music. Making it into a business was mainly a way of funding the obsession, not the other way around. As you say, I think a great many audio firms start out like this. |
Still very relevant though Audiofun. The interesting thing I found, apart from the Mac sounding better, was how they also sounded different. The best sound I could get out of a PC sounded a little hazy and soft, which I relate to the sound of a coaxial SPDIF cable. The sound of a Mac without Amarra sounded like you had swapped out the Coax cable and inserted an AT&T cable - cleaner, faster, better dynamics and PRAT, but with the downside of a touch of glare. Amarra more or less removes that glare, depending on how you get the bits out of the Mac.
Thanks Dan, I will keep an eye out for that new Weiss INT202. As you say, the Vesta is hard to justify. Paying similar money you can get Weiss to throw in a DAC, it would seem.
I tried a Lynx card briefly (it was only on loan) and slightly preferred the Empirical Off-ramp 3 with Superclock, so bought the Off-ramp. But I may have been hasty there so may buy myself a Lynx card and give it some more time. Particularly as I run 3 way active speakers and may want to do the crossovers in software and use six of those output channels on the AES16. |
You never know. Changes to a PC's BIOS are claimed to have a burn in time. I have better things to test than that one. But when I first tried Amarra, I heard it as different, but was not convinced it was better. It seems more like an EQ difference at first. The more I tweaked the whole Mac thing, the more it became clear to me that it was indeed better at capturing the full harmonics of an instrument or voice - and without it the harmonics were slightly grayed-out and flattened. I think this was due to me improving the performance of the Mac, but hey, there may have been some burn in, maybe... |
The BIOS burn in comments I was referring to have been made by guys making CMP PCs, and their claim is that to assess a BIOS change you need to make the change and then let it burn in. This is after the hardware burn in you refer to. |
Sidssp, sometimes it is just a matter of selecting them in iTunes and telling it to convert them to Apple Lossless and you are done. I had the same problem, IIRC, with Apple Lossless files in another context, and that cured it. |
Almarg, I suggest you look up Cic's Music Player and www.audioasylum.com for the discussions there. CMP, amongst other things, is a shell that automatically turns off a lot of unnecessary services in XP. It then works with cPlay to play music files. I think most people that have researched leading edge computer audio have come across it, and it has a significant following.
Yes the claims were that BIOS changes affect audio performance. And further, some claim that BIOS changes have a burn in period. Being open-minded you might be able to follow their drift. I doubt you have a monopoly in relevant tecnical expertise amongst the CMP community, so you may learn something from the interaction.
Unlike many other theories in digital audio, the CMP theory is to use an under clocked machine with as many services turned off as possible (amongst other things). Therefore turning things off in BIOS aids that. This isn't my claim, so I am not the best one to defend it against your scepticism. But the work done by many on testing configuration changes on CMP performance seems to have at least some validity given the intelligent following it has. Therefore I remain open-minded rather than dismissive of burn in of a BIOS change. No matter what we think we know about something, it is only a model in our heads, and it is an abstraction of reality - not a substitute for trying it to see.
Personally, I built a CMP/cPlay spec PC and it sounded good, but the current Mac configuration I have sounds better to me. I never played with variations of CMP, but with the Mac I got to the opposite conclusion, which is that a powerful Mac with lots of RAM sounded better than a minimally powered one. I suspect the CMP guys may just prefer less power/ram etc in order to reduce power supply size (and therefore noise) and to reduce heat (and therefore mechanical and electrical noise from cooling), but you would be better to ask them that one. |
