Amarra "Mini" -- $395

[morphsci]

I hate to say it, but Linux people tend to know one thing really well and jack all about anything that isn't that thing, so maybe they are more likely to make stupid statements that don't fall within the realm of that one thing (?)

QFT and my experience also.

[n_maher]

I hate to say it, but mac people are more gullible and so maybe they are more easily shaken free of a kilobuck (?)

they lost all cred, in my eyes, with that kind of statement.

Way to fall into your own trap and make a stupid dumbass comment like that and kill your own credibility.

[linuxworks]

I promise you samba and nfs are wrought with timing issues.

prove it, oh clueless asswipe that you are.

[VPI]

As someone that had a little debate with Linux at Head-fi based upon his massive expertise in every topic I would recommend ignoring him. His opinion is fact, there is no questioning this.

[grawk]

You need proof that nfs and samba aren't predictable in their timing? Good god, here's an easily reproducable test: set up your samba server on an 802.11g network, start reading the files on another computer, and then take a third computer and pingflood the nfs server.

As someone that had a little debate with Linux at Head-fi based upon his massive expertise in every topic I would recommend ignoring him. His opinion is fact, there is no questioning this.

He's gonna get more than ignored if this keeps up...

[linuxworks]

Way to fall into your own trap and make a stupid dumbass comment like that and kill your own credibility.

mac people ARE more gullible. they want computing handed to them easily since pcs are 'so hard' (rolls eyes).

mac hardware is not better (in any way) than pc hardware but the mac marketing machine has users thinking 'mac will take care of them'.

nothing hard to believe about this. its what macs are invented for. computer-phobes, by and large.

if the amarra people had 'beef' they'd also release a pc version. why is it they don't bring their 'super special sauce' to other platforms?

pc users already know how TRIVIAL it is to squirt out spdif bits. extremely simple. like I said, since win98 pentium-1 days, digital audio has working just fine.

but explain to the gullible high-end crowd that, oh my, there's PROBLEM with computer audio (there isn't, btw) then the pocket books open like a cheap whores legs.

[linuxworks]

See now there is the key, the bit timing and the timing may also be affected by whatever else is being done by the processors

negatory. once the bit-squirting hardware has the byte (via dma) the cpu and rest of system has nothing to do with it.

once I post a letter in the mail, whatever I do next, the post office is the ONLY one to affect letter speed.

[Dusty Chalk]

I'm not a mac fan but its incredulous to think that they 'messed up' something so simple as digital audio out to a sound card.

folks, that's all it is - clocking bits out to a serial card; same as rs232 (at one level).

The problem is that sound sources that go to the sound card are multiple. That's the reason kmixer was even born, and every operating system has their own approach to that particular resource contention problem, frought with its own compromises. Linux has two, I think: Jack and Alsa? Not sure, I only just started researching it myself.

PS I am neither a linux guy, nor a mac guy, nor a windows guy. But I've made all the mistakes -- over-generalizations though they all are -- mentioned above.

Dude, cut the trash-talk, you're gonna get banned.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Dusty Chalk

[linuxworks]

He's gonna get more than ignored if this keeps up...

ban me? for stating my views?

you already threatened me over at headfi. now you want to threaten me here?

what a dip-wad you are, grawk. seriously a dip-wad.

[linuxworks]

As someone that had a little debate with Linux at Head-fi based upon his massive expertise in every topic I would recommend ignoring him. His opinion is fact, there is no questioning this.

translation: you disagree with me.

fine!

can't be 'friends' with everyone.

(btw, who the hell are you, again?)

[n_maher]

mac people ARE more gullible. they want computing handed to them easily since pcs are 'so hard' (rolls eyes).

Being gullible and wanting a simple, straightforward GUI are not necessarily the same thing.

mac hardware is not better (in any way) than pc hardware but the mac marketing machine has users thinking 'mac will take care of them'.

False. I can count the number of times my Mac has crashed on one hand whereas I've lost count of how many times my Windows OS laptop has gone down. Not to mention the propensity for system updates to require reinstalling the entire OS (that's already happened once in 16 mo).

nothing hard to believe about this. its what macs are invented for. computer-phobes, by and large.

You're killing yourself, you know that, right? Do you think that you're talking to a bunch of idiots or blind fools here? I don't know why I'm bothering, really, since at this rate you've got one foot in the grave. Edited October 15, 2009 by n_maher

[grawk]

negatory. once the bit-squirting hardware has the byte (via dma) the cpu and rest of system has nothing to do with it.

once I post a letter in the mail, whatever I do next, the post office is the ONLY one to affect letter speed.

What about the timing between that byte and the next one? You're just talking because you like arguing.

[Dusty Chalk]

ban me? for stating my views?

Yes, pretty much. There are topics that do nothing but spin out of control -- you will find no admin under the sun who will tolerate "juice vs. squeeze" issues. If it's easier to ban you than deal with moderating every single discussion that you participate in, then you will be banned. That was true over at head-fi, too, when I was there.

[grawk]

ban me? for stating my views?

you already threatened me over at headfi. now you want to threaten me here?

It's SO much harder to get banned over there than here. Did you even bother reading your welcome pm?

translation: you disagree with me.

fine!

can't be 'friends' with everyone.

(btw, who the hell are you, again?)

Ah, but over here, we don't put up with the guy who insists on shitting on the sofa.

Jeff, time to take control of the head.

[morphsci]

negatory. once the bit-squirting hardware has the byte (via dma) the cpu and rest of system has nothing to do with it.

once I post a letter in the mail, whatever I do next, the post office is the ONLY one to affect letter speed.

I guess linux makes you arrogant and naive Your understanding of how "systems" operate is trully superficial. You are assuming the real world, i.e. any real computer, fits the model of how it should work, perfectly, with no variation. I certainly hope you are not a systems engineer.

I.e. in your example what affects the post office? It is a system, you think to linearly, think interactions man interactions.

Edited October 15, 2009 by morphsci

[Dreadhead]

Linuxworks, you're being such a douche that I actually feel bad for agreeing with some of your points earlier. I still agree with some of them but WTF on the MAC tirade. Calm down.

[morphsci]

No need to feel bad he actually made some valid points before the douche zombie took over his persona.

[Dreadhead]

i understand why you have issues with other aspects, but i don't understand why you have issues with that statement. on average, humans have the shittiest system of hearing possible that didn't negatively impact survivability and reproduction during the formative period of the species. it's a system with wide variances throughout the audible band, and strange signal processing done by the differentiated wad of mush it's hardwired to. this is why psychoacoustics work. why would it be at all surprising that something weird is subjectively better sounding?

Reks for me it's a matter of philosophy, I agree there are lots of things that people can do to make audio subjectively better sounding but for me I want accuracy to the original recording above all else. I rather control the fun stuff that makes it better sounding myself and not pay $400 for it.

Also applying the DSP to the signal is not not being bit accurate which is again not kosher with me unless you tell me what you're doing.

They could also be dithering the signal as well or adding a noise floor. Hmmm. Really makes me wonder. To bad I don't have any Almarra approved hardware or I'd love to get their digital signal and do a bit compare.

[jp11801]

until they tell us what they are doing, its all just marketing hype to me.

computers are quite easy to setup to output bit perfect audio. its not rocket science and does NOT need dsp!

dongles only add insult to injury.

Yeah my guess is that they're applying a phase "correcting" filter in the time domain with a convolution much like Ayre does. I just can't get over the "the correct math is not the best sounding math" (paraphrase) statement they made.

What Amarra is, is pretty straight forward and has been stated many times over, they are simply using their pro audio program Sonic Blade as the playback engine and Itunes as the GUI. Amarra is just the interface that allows this. This program and their other software packages are in many major studios, if it was BS it wouldn't be in use in so many studios.

So far no one has been able to explain (that I have seen) why different programs sound different upon playback but they do. Wave Editor, Bias Peak, Amarra, Itunes and songbird all sound different. I have no idea why they sound different but they do, I highly doubt only one is bit perfect.

I too hate the dongle but have gotten used to it, it would be a deal breaker on a laptop for me even with the extension they provide.

[Dreadhead]

What Amarra is, is pretty straight forward and has been stated many times over, they are simply using their pro audio program Sonic Blade as the playback engine and Itunes as the GUI. Amarra is just the interface that allows this. This program and their other software packages are in many major studios, if it was BS it wouldn't be in use in so many studios.

So far no one has been able to explain (that I have seen) why different programs sound different upon playback but they do. Wave Editor, Bias Peak, Amarra, Itunes and songbird all sound different. I have no idea why they sound different but they do, I highly doubt only one is bit perfect. .

Saying that pro studios use it is not a stamp of technical excellence by any stretch of the imagination. There are well respected studios that put Shatki stones on stuff.

As far as programs sounding different my experience is the exact opposite. I've used 3 different pieces of software (WMP, WinAMP and foobar) and to play my music into ASIO then on to my PC and I've never heard any difference when setup to bypass their DSP and volume control (other than foobar seems to have fewer DPC issues because of its lighter footprint). I have never heard anything remotely resembling the difference I heard with Amarra off vs on.

If the software is outputting bit perfect audio then it should sound the same. The only thing left is jitter which while possibly audible can't be responsible for the mid-range sounding sweeter or more impact or whatever other thing people say they note between different software.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Dreadhead

[morphsci]

translation: how can you disagree with the supreme being.

fine!

can't not be a douche.

(btw, who the hell are you, again? Hey! Let go of my Hea...)

FTFY

[jp11801]

Reks for me it's a matter of philosophy, I agree there are lots of things that people can do to make audio subjectively better sounding but for me I want accuracy to the original recording above all else. I rather control the fun stuff that makes it better sounding myself and not pay $400 for it.

Also applying the DSP to the signal is not not being bit accurate which is again not kosher with me unless you tell me what you're doing.

They could also be dithering the signal as well or adding a noise floor. Hmmm. Really makes me wonder. To bad I don't have any Almarra approved hardware or I'd love to get their digital signal and do a bit compare.

If the program that records your song and also is used to edit and mix your song is also used to playback your song , I'm not sure how this is less accurate than using itunes:confused:.

To my knowledge you are the only stating they are using DSP, if you have proof then state it if not I'm not sure why you get to continue repeating you theory. You continue to throw stuff against the wall with no basis of proof. Odd that many high end computer rooms used Amarra at RMAF and two of the guys that run the Tape Project and are award winning engineers endorse it as well:rolleyes:

[jp11801]

Saying that pro studios use it is not a stamp of technical excellence by any stretch of the imagination. There are well respected studios that put Shatki stones on stuff.

If the software is outputting bit perfect audio then it should sound the same. The only thing left is jitter which while possibly audible can't be responsible for the mid-range sounding sweeter or more impact or whatever other thing people say they note between different software.

So you believe that what you know is all there is to know, that's fine. I think we'll find out more about digital playback and what effects it in the near future.

Here is where I can lose totally credibility, so what the fuck, at RMAF in Philip O'Hanlen's room they had they crazy Tibetan chant bowls from Synergistic there. They demoed them in and out of the room and the effect was staggering. I was in a room full of 12 people and unless we were all hypnotized the impact was real.

I say this to you simply to say while it is reassuring to think you know all there is to know unfortunately it is probably not true. I for one thought the bowls were bullshit after a friend told me of the same experience. After all how could it possibly make a difference but it did. I simply do not know all things and how they make an impact but am open to the possibility if demonstrated to me.

[Dreadhead]

If the program that records your song and also is used to edit and mix your song is also used to playback your song , I'm not sure how this is less accurate than using itunes:confused:.

To my knowledge you are the only stating they are using DSP, if you have proof then state it if not I'm not sure why you get to continue repeating you theory. You continue to throw stuff against the wall with no basis of proof. Odd that many high end computer rooms used Amarra at RMAF and two of the guys that run the Tape Project and are award winning engineers endorse it as well:rolleyes:

I entirely accept that the engineers did whatever the hell they did with the audio in the mixing room/software. I'm concerned only with what happens after it's burned to the digital domain in its final form.

I can state they use DSP because for one they do volume control within the software. That said I said I think they are using DSP because the damn software on vs off sounds a lot different.

[Dreadhead]

So you believe that what you know is all there is to know, that's fine. I think we'll find out more about digital playback and what effects it in the near future.

Here is where I can lose totally credibility, so what the fuck, at RMAF in Philip O'Hanlen's room they had they crazy Tibetan chant bowls from Synergistic there. They demoed them in and out of the room and the effect was staggering. I was in a room full of 12 people and unless we were all hypnotized the impact was real.

I say this to you simply to say while it is reassuring to think you know all there is to know unfortunately it is probably not true. I for one thought the bowls were bullshit after a friend told me of the same experience. After all how could it possibly make a difference but it did. I simply do not know all things and how they make an impact but am open to the possibility if demonstrated to me.

I don't know all there is to know and I know it. I dont' even know 1/1000th of all there is to know but I like things to backed up with scientific explanations or proof not entirely possible placebo effect.