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
 
Not so fast, Chadeffect. You still need an additional DAC
to convert 16/44, 24/44, 24/48, 24/88, 24/96, 24/176,
24/192, 24/196, and we all know 32 bit Music Files are
just around the corner. How many more new DACs do we need for how many more new Sampling Rates every two weeks? Who
makes the big bucks off of this? Do they make the big bucks
in a vacuum? Who then loses the big bucks? You do,
Chadeffect, and anyone else who follows this insane path to
emptying their wallet. Not good when you have to pay for
gasoline, and food in this economy. Are you understanding
the point yet? You have to be able to add to understand the point. I think you can, I just believe that you want to
conveniently avoid the math. Your Computer Audio maybe fluid; But, peoples money, and their income are not! There
is a disconnection there, and people will feel that sting
with an expensive fluid Computer Audio Format. People react
differently after they get stung! They lose the love for the New Format real fast! Fix this, or don't- I don't care
anymore.
bjesien
1,257 posts
 
I want to hire Pettyofficer and Chadeffect to design the next best computer audio system. What kind of funding do you guys need?
synthfreek's avatar
synthfreek
627 posts
 
So the original poster never even came back ONCE after all these responses? Gotta love it.
synthfreek's avatar
synthfreek
627 posts
 
And I've been using the same 24/192 audio interface since 2004...you don't need one "every few weeks" pettyofficer.
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Pettyofficer,

"Not so fast, Chadeffect. You still need an additional DAC
to convert 16/44, 24/44, 24/48, 24/88, 24/96, 24/176,
24/192, 24/196, and we all know 32 bit Music Files..."

No you dont need an additional DAC. All DACs will do pretty much all those rates today. If not convert the file to your DACs capability. Keep your money.

If its a choice between eating & highend audio, you had better eat and not worry about sample rates...

As I told you earlier in above posts. You do not need the latest DAC. All reasonably modern DACs can do what you need. And there are plenty of "cheap" DACs which are more than capable.

Will you really feel left out if you have to convert some crazily high sample rate to a more usable 44.1/88.2/96/192k? Will you start crying because you cannot playback 32 bit recordings when you can't afford bread to eat?

Please get a grip. You will always be able to convert files to what you need while keeping the original. Don't give any guys your money. Please eat.

But if you have enough money to eat & wish to spend on highend audio, a decent DAC giving you mind boggling quality can be 'cheap'. Espacially in a world full of people trying to sell you $100,000 speakers or $4,000 anti vibration platforms or $13,000 inter connects.

Take the fact that whatever happens now we are dealing with files. Not tapes or whatever that need specific hardware to play them. Unlike those out of date those tape machines (DATs/DCC/Minidisk/Tape decks,reel to reels etc) which are now door stops or quaint memories, you can turn your file into what you need for your DAC to process. Be it 16 bit,24 bit,32 bit or 64 bit. You choose.

Is this clear Petty? Your worst case sample rate is 16 bit. It's seems you are happy playing CDs at that.

I can tell you it will be a long while before you see real 32 bit music. The pro audio recording standard DACs are hardly there yet. They are nearly all 24 bit 192k capable with most set to record at 24 bit and 44.1 or 96k.

Unless you really want to record at 192k as an artist, which would limit a lot of the processing capabilities of the studio, it will be the above rates. I know of few studio effects processors that can do real 192k processing. The effects will dither it then bring it back up unless going analogue. So pointless. Obviously acoustic recordings like orchestras would not need the effects processing so are more likely to be true 192k.
More to discover