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
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!
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
Pettyofficer - I never claimed that we can listen to studio quality recordings in our listening room - this is not unique to computer audio nor is it a function of the hardware. Are you listening to studio quality on your turntable or CDP? Do you even have access to test pressings on these other formats? This is no more the fault of computer audio than it is the turntable or any other source.

Why don't you make similar rants against the CD format? That's an even more compromised format and should be held even more accountable by your standards.

And I'm not trying to make a believer out of your or anyone. I couldn't care less if you like computer audio or not. I'm also not one to be overly sensitive about criticisms of computer audio and will be the first to admit that it is most definitely NOT plug and play. I respect your desire for computer audio, or any format for that matter, to improve in fidelity. I just think your opinions are misguided.

If it is studio quality you desire then computer audio can certainly get you closer to that goal than can redbook CD. We can only hope that high res downloads continue to grow so we can have access to something closer to the master tape than we are afforded by CD!

I'm currently listening to a 24/96 master of the latest Dream Theater album downloaded from HDTracks and let me tell you - it absolutely kills my CD! The sound is startlingly good!
jdoris
972 posts
 
I'm upgrading my DAC, and have temporarily gone back to a CDP from computer based audio. My DAC (PSA Perfect Wave) handily beats my CDP (Jolida JD 100) on sonics, but I'd have to have sound on a CDP that was WAY better to contemplate a permanent return. Piles of discs: constantly changing discs, misplaced discs, damaged discs, defective discs, and (my personal favorite) broken jewel cases. I'd forgotten what a mess it is. YUK! YUK! YUK!

And did I mention, the sonics are a lot better on my astronomically more user friendly and convenient computer set up?

Take that Petty! I'm glad you're here too.:)

John
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Hi pettyofficer,
The main reason there aren't more computers designed for music is there is no need. There are some laptops that are said to be for music, but they are only an attempt to have a built in sound card & reasonable ins & outs on the go for recording etc.

Nearly every studio I have been in uses a standard powerful mac as a brain. The converters etc are external hardware devices. I.e protools, Apogee, UAD,RME,Weiss, Prism sound, metric halo. Mainly FireWire.

Some have specially set up PCs. I use both PC & Mac.

The question should be why are there no standards in Hifi? Not just computer audio. Choice is a good thing until there is too much. Then there is only confusion.

Hifi is full of confusion due to many many opinions about what is good or best. Mainly by people who don't know what the original sound of the record they are playing actually was! So then we get into taste. Not an exact reproduction of the master.

Computers are great levellers. My computer replaced elitist über transports. I have never looked back. Just the thought of browsing through all those disks now seems so alien. Before you leap in with " oh but the SQ..." at worst it's the same and at best it's better in SQ. By "better" i mean like the master. In my case SQ is better due to this & its more convenient & its cheaper!

A great leveller... How can you complain? If you want the finest SQ with a computer based system there are just some procedures to follow. Just workout what you want in SQ.
pettyofficer
462 posts
 
Chadeffect- does it ever occur to you that this lack of
Standard in the Operating System for Computer Audio- can
only lead to mixed results when used for High End Audio?
You are not going to win listeners that way, neither are
you gonna win by shaming those who have problems with varying S.Q. issues with Computer Audio. Since it isn't
designed for any consistency at all, how can you possibly
measure what is good, or best? I fail to see any planning
(Design) here at all!
More to discover