2. pc-audio
  3. 1328246582

Mach2Music mini and Amarra : Huge disappointment

I invite all the fellow Audiogon members than own both the Mach2Music Mini and Amarra to share they experiences.

Mine has been a huge disappointment .

The sound I get from the Mach2Music mini even with the advantage of playing Hi-Res files is mediocre at best and way inferior to the sound of a common CD.
Mach2Music tech support after checking that every setting is correct and everything is as it should dropped the ball. They blame the mediocre sound I'm complaining about on Amarra newer version of software they say more stable but sounding not so great.......

To me It doesn't add up. When there are problems the old music start playing: It's someone else fault. May be it's just that the Mach2Music mini is not so great as some say to start with.......

After spending over $4000 on the Mach2Music web site purchasing all the best available upgrades to possibly get the best possible sound from this computer based system, including their top of the line cables (power, USB, Firewire) an optional solid state SSD hard drive besides their special sandwich case to reduce vibrations and the expensive software Amarra, I get instead the sound you would from a cassette player.........at least that's how it sounds to me in my audio system....

My audio system as you read below is of high quality and well balanced where everything from acoustic treatment to power treatment has been closely matched starting from a dedicated room 20x24x9H fully treated with massive use of acoustic diffusers Gikq7 and bass traps Soffits and Tritraps by GikAcoustics.

Audio components connected to the Mach2music mini are:

DAC : dCS Debussy 24/192
Pre: BAT VK52SE upgraded with 6H30DR supertubes Reflector 1987.
Amp: 2x BAT VK600SE Mono
Transport ; Oppo 95
Speakers ; Magnepan 20.1
Speaker cables : MIT Oracle Matrix HD90
Interconnect : MIT Oracle Matrix XLR
Power: 2x Torus RM20 (one x each amp on two dedicated 20 amp circuits)
Power cords all MIT Oracle ZIII
Audio rack Adona Zero reference
All internal and external stock fuses replaced with HiFi Tuning Supreme.

I rarely write on the forum but this is too big of a screw up to pass and I hope to save to somebody the frustration I went thru.

Besides if some of you has a very positive experience with other computer based systems please share . Help is always appreciated.

I hear good things about Solos by Meridian or the USB Thumb reader by Bryston and I'll probably move on one of the two.... life continues......

so if you'll see my Mach2mini for sale on Audiogon in the near future you already know why..............................
128x128alessandro1
edorr
714 posts
 
Pettyofficer, I don't quite understand your rambling about formats. Existing lossless formats (Flac, Wav etc.) are capable of storing and transfering information at exactly the same resoltion as in the recording studio. There may be issues with computer based audio, and lack of high rez content, but the "format" is not part of the problem.
pettyofficer
462 posts
 
Computer Audio fails for some, and succeeds for others, is
because of an inconsistency in design. Computers were never designed to reproduce High End S.Q. Every single
Music Format was designed for Music from the ground up:
Analog Records, Analog Tape, Cassette, 8-Track, CD, SACD,
DVD-Audio, and Blue-Ray Audio. Ditto for the Equipment to
playback these Formats- Computer Audio not so much!
Computers designed for Mastering at Recording Studios- NOT
THE SAME! Same as a DELL or an ASUS, or even an APPLE- who
are you kidding? New Format, only one NOT designed for Music- to replace all other Music Formats? Using a Tool
for other than it was designed for- absurd! Using it to
replace the rest of your Tools- insane! Failure inevitable!
chadeffect
586 posts
 
I have no idea why pettyofficer keeps on about the format?The file is the format. If the file is copied from the "master" it is the same whether it's a flac,aiff,wav.

I think your gripe is about hardware. But thats just as it has always been. it's about which hardware you choose. Forget the format issue. The file can be any resolution you ask for. It makes little difference to download 16/44.1 or 24/96 or 24/196. The record label won't care how many bits it is!

Your problem seems to be about the hardwares tonal qualities. I would not worry about that. A little research & set up is all thats needed. Think of all those phono stages, arms,motors & cartridges people complain about. It's the same issue, Just its a computer & operating system this time
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
Pettyofficer - I'm beginning to think that your name is very appropriate! Every format "succeeds for some and fails for others" - including vinyl. Every format has to start somewhere. Whether it is designed for audio from ground up or not, all that matters is ultimate sound quality. Because of the fact that computers are complex multifunctional beasts, computer audio necessarily takes some effort to get right - optimizing your computer for audio and adding the appropriate ancillary equipment do require some research. In my case, I researched it for months before setting about to design a digital front end which easily bests my previous more expensive optical player.

Obviously it appears that you may lack either the necessary patience or mental capacity to get involved in this endeavour.

You've made your point and many of us who enjoy great performance from our server-based systems disagree. As someone who obviously is not interested in exploring computer-based audio, I would suggest you start hanging out on some other forums which might interest you more.
antigrunge
74 posts
 
Hfisher3380,

thanks for your comments on Pettyofficer. A forum to improve people's experience with digital audio may be a good place for him to get his kicks but he certainly is getting them at the expense of everybody. Alas, that considerate thought probably hasn't occured to him.
More to discover