Fucking moron with computer source question......

[Beefy]

I'm not denying that people could like it. I am just skeptical of what it actually does, and whether something free would have the same effect...... if set up 'properly'.

[grawk]

Free software is only free if your time is worthless. If given unlimited time to make something else, sure maybe you could improve on what something else commercial does out of the box. If you don't want to spend your money that way, don't, but it doesn't make the people who can afford it and choose that lesser being than you.

[Beefy]

Oh please. How much valuable time do most of us 'waste' buying/building/testing/selling gear already...... but a few minutes to set up your audio playback software properly is too much time to bear?

[grawk]

I'd say my software is set up properly as is. And software like foobar is so esthetically displeasing that I can't imagine it ever being something I'd want to use.

The big point in question tho is you're being a condescending jag bag. Take that shit elsewhere, prick.

[boomana]

I'm not denying that people could like it. I am just skeptical of what it actually does, and whether something free would have the same effect...... if set up 'properly'.

I admit I haven't had my coffee yet, which may account for reading comprehension problems, but I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that because the amarra costs money, it sounds better to people, and that there might be something available that doesn't cost money that should be able to do same? If so, you basically said that amarra probably does make a difference, but people shouldn't have to pay for what it does. Since the amarra costs money, noticed differences are suspect, but if free, it's okay to notice differences as equal to the effects of products that cost. That's how I'm reading it, and if that's what you mean, that's as messed up as people who really believe that expensive always equals better.

Okay, time for coffee.

[Beefy]

That's how I'm reading it, and if that's what you mean, that's as messed up as people who really believe that expensive always equals better.

You don't need coffee, I think you have it pretty well nailed

I don't deny that different software, or poorly setup software, can have different results. But keep in mind that we keep getting derailed from my original point that there is no inherent difference between a MAC and a PC for audio playback. Deepak posted about Amarra, which I took as a suggestion that MAC is somehow still superior.

I strongly disagree, because I believe that properly set up software on any O/S can have the same effect as Amarra on a MAC. Bit perfect, well buffered, low latency is all good. My thoughts about spending money for it were made pretty clear in my post right after Deepak's, and I'll state it again here - I think it is retarded, because it isn't exactly difficult and there are plenty of free or less expensive solutions. If anybody takes that as condescending, then they can take a spoonful of concrete and harden the hell up. I'm not going to get concerned if people criticise me for being too poor to buy Amarra and a MAC, such that I have to look for free solutions on a lowly PC......

[grawk]

No one is telling you to buy amarra. I don't give a fuck if you even listen to music. It's not retarded to spend money instead of time. It's not retarded to spend money for a better user experience. It's not retarded to think do or want something different than you do. And really, "harden the hell up?" Get over yourself.

[boomana]

No one called the PC lowly. That's just weird. No one said you can't find solutions that could be as good or better for free or close to free. Go for it! I'm more than sure that everyone here would embrace that. What I don't get is the reverse snobbery of people who think that because others can afford something, they look down on those who can't (not true of anyone here I know), or that our senses are somehow polluted by money, and we now can't tell good from not so good anymore, but poorer people can. That's what I'm objecting to: the chip on the shoulder bias.

[Beefy]

The lowly PC was intended as sarcasm. I don't consider it lowly at all, and I intend to stick with a PC/Windows regardless - that is just what I have used and always used.

I don't think I have a chip on my shoulder, but I can see how it comes across like that. I just get rather frustrated because computer audio is one of those areas that seems to escape the rigor normally covered by healthy skepticism - or even audiophile skepticism. As I said earlier, people are happy to spend hours upon hours testing comparing cables, DACs, amps, and finding millimeter perfect positioning of phones on the head. But then when it comes to computer audio they throw their hands up in defeat before even starting. The default position is frequently that everything sucks, and the only way around it for many is expensive snakeoil.

There are alternatives, they are cheap, and they take very little time.

[randerson3024]

Interesting thread here - I started it because I am really inexperienced with computers as sources, and I suppose I am I a snob in the regards of what I consider to be an acceptable quality of playback, and hopefully not too inclined to think the amount of money spent on my system has added any inches to my dick, although human nature does come in to play. There is nothing wrong with being an elitist for the right reasons, in this case, musical truth, which gives me great joy and sanity while stuck out here for lengthy voyages on this fucking ship. If I can't listen for at least two hours a day, I go nuts.

The bottom line is that I know exactly jack-shit about computers as a playback source. My choices in the matter came down to 3, a Berkeley Alpha DAC, Linn Akurate DS, or the Ayre QB-9. The Ayre was cheaper and the easist to try. The Amarra software so far has greatly increased the musicality of the playback, especially compared to my favorite playback medium, XRCD's played back through my Reimyo. There has been lots of wonderful advice, and I intend to become more educated in the use of computers, software, and DAC's. For now, I think I have made the right choice. I can also say in all honesty, that if I had less money to throw at this, I would still listen daily, and glean what I can from whatever equipment I had, just like I did 20 years ago with Advents, Dynaco, and a used Thorens turntable.

[Beefy]

Honestly, I'm happy you've got a solution you're comfortable with. In your particular situation I can genuinely see a need for going with the fastest and easiest option.

But do I think you should try and learn a bit more about computer as source when you have more time? Yes, absolutely.

[randerson3024]

Honestly, I'm happy you've got a solution you're comfortable with. In your particular situation I can genuinely see a need for going with the fastest and easiest option.

But do I think you should try and learn a bit more about computer as source when you have more time? Yes, absolutely.

I agree completely. A lot of this has to be done in port. It takes a long time for the pages to resolve themselves on many audiophile pages with our slow connection, so I tend to be lazy and ask questions that I should be researching myself.

[boomana]

The lowly PC was intended as sarcasm. I don't consider it lowly at all, and I intend to stick with a PC/Windows regardless - that is just what I have used and always used.

I don't think I have a chip on my shoulder, but I can see how it comes across like that. I just get rather frustrated because computer audio is one of those areas that seems to escape the rigor normally covered by healthy skepticism - or even audiophile skepticism. As I said earlier, people are happy to spend hours upon hours testing comparing cables, DACs, amps, and finding millimeter perfect positioning of phones on the head. But then when it comes to computer audio they throw their hands up in defeat before even starting. The default position is frequently that everything sucks, and the only way around it for many is expensive snakeoil.

There are alternatives, they are cheap, and they take very little time.

I get that it was sarcasm, but it's unnecessary, condescending, and stupid, especially since no one here probably disagrees with you on your point about there possibly being cheap, and hopefully excellent, alternatives. You, on the other hand, seem to take the position that any computer solutions that just happen cost some money must be snakeoil, even though you've never heard what you're criticizing. What idiocy! You don't seem to have first-hand knowledge of the amarra, yet have no problem inferring that those here who do are all placebo-addled fools, void of developed listening skills as well as the intelligence to be self-reflective about what they're hearing and of forming thoughtful judgments. Why bother showing up here at all since we're all such bumbling earasses? Just so you can feel superior while using your ignorance as the measure?

I don't use my computer as a source, care nothing about any possible solutions, and don't care to learn, so have no dog in the fight, as they say. I do care very much about stupid people posting here. There are other websites that embrace your form of snobbery. Go feel smug there.

Edited January 31, 2010 by boomana

[grawk]

The lowly PC was intended as sarcasm. I don't consider it lowly at all, and I intend to stick with a PC/Windows regardless - that is just what I have used and always used.

No one else called it lowly either, no one is attacking the position that it's possible to have other paths to success.

I don't think I have a chip on my shoulder, but I can see how it comes across like that. I just get rather frustrated because computer audio is one of those areas that seems to escape the rigor normally covered by healthy skepticism - or even audiophile skepticism. As I said earlier, people are happy to spend hours upon hours testing comparing cables, DACs, amps, and finding millimeter perfect positioning of phones on the head. But then when it comes to computer audio they throw their hands up in defeat before even starting. The default position is frequently that everything sucks, and the only way around it for many is expensive snakeoil.

There are alternatives, they are cheap, and they take very little time.

You're inventing a strawman and being a jackass about it. The people that I know who use amarra didn't buy it because some salesman or forum told them to. Saying that Al, Jeff, and John are suckers (which is what you're doing) is insulting my friends with baseless criticism. You're talking out of your ass, and being a condescending prick. It's people like you that discourage less technical people from even considering the free solutions, because so many high profile jackasses espouse your position. So go over to the computer as source forum at headfi, or to hardocp, or to whatever other place you want, and be a snobbish jerk there. If you stay here, get over yourself and act like you would in someone else's living room.

[Beefy]

You don't seem to have first-hand knowledge of the amarra, yet have no problem inferring that those here who do are all placebo-addled fools, void of developed listening skills as well as the intelligence to be self-reflective about what they're hearing and of forming thoughtful judgments.

The problem is, nobody in this thread has given a decent reference point for their comparison. This is what I snapped at randerson for: The Amarra makes a big difference in my system. The iMac and Ayre QB-9 are good by themselves, but the Amarra makes it truly musical.

Compared to what? There is no stringency in the comparison. Its a valid question to ask.

[grawk]

We're not a stringent scientific comparison forum. We're friends having conversations. If you continue to treat it like a debating society for geeks, you're gonna have trouble.

[Hopstretch]

I'm just at a loss as to why this apparently grinds your gears so much, Beefy? No one around these parts has made any extravagant claims for Amarra other than that it definitely does something to the sound that some of us like and some of us don't. Dreadhead couldn't stand it at CanJam, as I recall, but he could certainly hear the effect. To me it's just a straight preference issue, rather than some stereotypical audio horseshit like claiming to be able to detect the sonic differences between two types of sheathing over the same IC cable.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Hopstretch

[Beefy]

I'm just at a loss as to why this apparently grinds your gears so much, Beefy?

Computer as source just seems to be one of those areas where audiophiles give up. I just can't see or understand why the majority don't put the same effort into this as they do to everything else. Pompon's first post got me started, because pompon is a douche. Anybody else, and I probably wouldn't have even bothered.

For those that do put the effort in, and genuinely prefer Amarra or *whatever*, I really have no problem. It is just impossible to tell which camp people are falling into.

[grawk]

So assume that everyone here cares as much as you do, did as much critical listening and thinking as you would, and just didn't bother to write a fucking peer fucking reviewed fucking article for some fucking scholarly fucking journal that no fucking body would fucking read, ok fuckbag?

[Beefy]

...... and I'm the condescending one with the chip on their shoulder?

I know you don't like me, but I think you're taking it a bit far.

[boomana]

Being angry isn't the same as being wrong.

[Voltron]

As one of the retards who chose to BUY the Amarra software and hardware with MONEY, I can say that I spent more time researching and considering those purchases than probably any other audio purchase I have made. I happen to live nearby their offices, so I met with the head of Sonic Studios/Amarra a couple of times, I got an early copy of the software for demo (with the dreaded iLok), I got a demo Amarra 4 to bring to a couple of meets including CanJam, and I compared the output of both in numerous ways. I also got JP and Ric and others to check it out and comment about it, and I took their similarly positive reactions to mean something. I then did more research and reading and made my decision. I've written about it numerous times on this site in the past.

I have no doubt that the SQ I get from Amarra is improved over iTunes on its own, and from what I know about how it is built and what it is doing makes sense to me. I am not in a position to try to explain it to you other than what I have written elsewhere on this site. I don't care whether you need to have some kind of empirical proof for you to believe something works or is worth money, and I cannot provide that to you anyway.

If you think there is a free/cheap/self-programmed way to get as good or better sound out of your computer, then have at it. But you can take your smug self-righteousness and your defensiveness about your PC and go fuck yourself with it.

[boomana]

The problem is, nobody in this thread has given a decent reference point for their comparison. This is what I snapped at randerson for: The Amarra makes a big difference in my system. The iMac and Ayre QB-9 are good by themselves, but the Amarra makes it truly musical.

Compared to what? There is no stringency in the comparison. Its a valid question to ask.

It's not a valid question to ask. The guy titled his thread "Fucking Moron with Computer Source" then posted up front he'd never used his computer as a source before. What stringent comparisons would you expect him to make? Same for anyone else. No one is claiming to have vast experience with computer audio software. They're posting impressions about what they have. What would you like them to compare? Should Al go buy a pc just to try out every possible software solution before saying he likes the way the amarra sounds in his rig? We're individual people in our homes sharing what we like and don't like with friends who can agree or not.

So, why don't you arrange a whole meet of computers for us, all with different software solutions, then set up volume-matched rigs with identical amps and headphones and music that we've all used for a least a few months, so we're familiar with what we're hearing. Of course, you'd have to fly us in, and put us up in identical hotel rooms, guarantee we get the same amount of rest and same good food; have a physician examine us for equivalent good health, hearing acuity, serotonin levels, stress levels, rashes, mosquito bites, personality disorders, etc., and make sure that we're wearing equally comfy clothes and shoes and are not having bad hair days. Kick out the bums who don't measure well, and then let us get to the biz of comparing. I'd bet that within a few posts of our impressions, if someone happened to prefer a more expensive solution to something free, you'd be complaining that we didn't DBT, but if we couldn't hear a difference or preferred a less expensive product, I'd bet my bank account you'd claim our impressions were valid.

Bah.

[morphsci]

I was originally a sceptic about Amarra making any difference and my initial listen to it at CanJam did not improve the situation. However a later listen at DanJam with more familiar music and headphones as well as the ability to easily switch it off was a reveletaion. Luckily, I'm an old guy with early onset memory loss so it was relatively easy for me to do a bunch of switches and lose track of whether Amarra was on or off. About as close to a blind test as I'm willing to waste my time on. Damnit, if I wasn't perfect on picking when Amarra was on and when it was off. After that I was able to focus on the sonics and it took the "edge" off the music without losing detail or transient speed.

Sorry, but you are being a close-minded dick and your skepticism isn't healthy at all. It is just as much based upon faith as position you are criticising. Oh, and my time is worth infinitely more than my money because of my family friends and life. So either chill out or pick up your

[Voltron]

The lowly PC was intended as sarcasm. I don't consider it lowly at all, and I intend to stick with a PC/Windows regardless - that is just what I have used and always used.

Not to pile on again, but Jim's post reminded me that I meant to point out this particularly closed-minded and completely hypocritical comment you made. You plan to stick with PCs regardless of the potential for better options, huh? Stringent indeed.