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
tpreaves's avatar
tpreaves
2,686 posts
 
If you ignore him he will move on to something else. It's his M.O., check the threads he's posted in.
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Personally I'm glad Pettyofficer can post his opinions & share ideas here. Many died & suffered for us to have free speech. Let's not forget that.

The problems start when no one listens to each others points & ignores the experiences of others. Especially to those who have wide experience & knowledge in these fields. There are many here.

It would seem Pettyofficer has not heard a nicely set up server system. Remember it is what music today is actually recorded & mainly mixed on!

So unlike in any other period in history, the file/format you are playing on your system is that that was recorded in the studio(as long as it is not data compressed). So this format argument is kind of irrelevant.

Surely his issue is with some dodgy DAC/amp/speaker/cables combination? Or just a love for the short comings of an old format which he has gotten used to & likes the sound of. Not the reading of the data.

If you want tips please ask, don't just say its not as good as my TT or even as good as my old CDP! The joy in this hobby is to search & experience to find the right sound for you.

Digital playback is here to stay. It can do anything you want sonically. It gets better,cheaper,smaller and more flexible by the year. What's not to love about that? Let's look forwards not backwards. If you like the past so much we can digitise it for you so you can take into the future! Lol.
pettyofficer
462 posts
 
I appreciate the kind words, Chadeffect. I do use Computer
Audio! I have had success with it in S.Q. Computer Audio
may be what Music today is actually recorded & mainly
mixed on. These are still Studio designed, your Mac Mini
not quite in the same league. It is the Personnal Computer
that is the actual funnel that this Data has to pass through. A Tool not primarily designed for Music, unlike those being used in Mastering Studio's. Where are the
Personnal Computers designed for Music, and why aren't they here? Why are there no Audio Standards to maintain
some consistency in S.Q. for personnal Computers? It is no
accident that so many have such a varied result with
Computer Audio. Would like to keep it around for awhile,
but THIS does not bode well! I think that we deserve our
money's worth out of Computer Audio, that includes actually
designing the Personnal Computer FOR Audio in Computer Audio. If this is an oxymoron New Format, forgive me! I stand corrected. I don't really think it is though!
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
Once again Pettyofficer your opinions show that you just don't completely grasp the basic concepts here. Let me clarify:

(1) The computers used in recording studios are not magical in any way - they are the very computers that can be purchased from Apple, Dell etc. Yes they have way more processing power than the typical computer used in a home stereo because they are running much more complicated software. They might employ a powerful Mac tower whereas I choose to run a Mac Mini. But there is nothing stopping me from buying a big tower for my home stereo. The difference in sound quality would likely be negligible, the massive tower would look odd in my room and I'd just be wasting all that processing power. A powermac is no more "designed for audio" than is a mac mini.

(2) Yes the sound files have to pass through the computer but in a properly implemented system it only passes raw digital files from an external hard drive to the DAC. You don't need more than an optimized Mac Mini or comparable to accomplish this small task. It's all in the implementation, and this would in large part describe the varied results amongst different users. Patience and research are required to do this right - as well as a DAC capable of taking the processing out of the computer's hands and rejecting jitter.

(3) Computer audio is not really a "new format" in the strictest sense of the word. In a properly implemented system the raw files being played are no different than those on your shiny silver discs. The exception of course being high res downloads which are theoretically capable of higher fidelity than redbook spec. However, with proper implementation jitter can be reduced vs. optical systems and error correction is a non-factor by isolating the reading of the discs from the recreation of the stored sound files.
pettyofficer
462 posts
 
Hfisher3380- excuse me, I stand corrected. Perhaps you can
clarify for me what DXD is? I believe it is the Format that
has been used in Mastering Studio's. I believe that it even has a higher sampling rate than SACD. Hey, my tower
only cost me $700.00. Can I still use it to mix multiple
DXD Music Files? No, something like that would cost atleast
5 digits or more. I know that it gives everyone a warm fuzzy thinking that their own home little personal Computer
is on the same playing field as the big boy's in the Mastering Studio's. Warm Fuzzies, Old Wives Tales, and the
Old Lock Ness Monster! Any consulation Hfisher3380- hey you
made a believer out of me, Nessie too!
More to discover