amarra or pure music..?

What is it about these programs that make them sound different I wonder?

Are they doing some kind of digital signal processing to produce a certain sound?

I would expect any software programs used to play digital audio to just pass the bits by default (ie do nothing to affect the resulting sound) unless you chose to alter it in some way, similar to most audio signal processing devices?

I have compared Amarra 1.2, 2.0, 2.1, 2.1.1, Pure Music and AyreWave in my system.

Let me say first that they are all good and an improvement over iTunes.

In my system I prefer the sound of the old Amarra 1.2 to the others. YMMV. I also like the EQ feature and the transparent volume control of Amarra. This may all change as the others tweak their software or I discover new software.

I have not found any of them to be stable all of the time. It is best to close the S/W when you are done playing and re-open it at the next session. Ocassionally you have to reboot also.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

I have been trying out Fidelia which I think sounds even better than Amarra. I am not a fan of Fidelia's interface. Personally I love using the Art work cover flow interface in Itunes to search through the library using Amarra in the background as the output.

Somehow Fidelia's sonics are even more detailed and maybe sweeter than Amarra 2.1.1. There is not much in it but it is there and worth having.

Audioengr

I liked 1.2 a lot too, but 2.1.1 sounds very slightly smoother/vibrant to me in memory mode. The stuttering at the start of each track in Itunes I find ruins it. I hope they fix this ASAP. PM have managed it.

Mapman,

I have found nearly all software sounds slightly different. Don't ask me why! Especially on PC. Even Pro software from the same manufacturer.

'I have found nearly all software sounds slightly different. Don't ask me why! "

There are endless reasons why this might occur. You are pretty much at the mercy of the software.

But, if it were me designing these tools, I would envision a good design would merely stream the existing data in real time as needed by default and not do anything to the bit stream unless the user specifies. Similar to being able to bypass processing on an analog equalizer or other signal processor as desired.

Of course, bugs are always possible as well, meaning even if designed to work properly, the program still does not.

One reason I stick with Windows Media Player for example is I have found it to be very robust and reliable which is what I would expect in that it has been around through multiple revisions already, has a large user base and is designed by a major software vendor who knows as well as any company how to do these things right.

I am not very trusting off one off software vendors when it comes to this kind of thing. Doing it right is hard and takes both time and money (like most things).

I use both Pure Music and Amarra Mini; most of the time Pure Music. I've tried Fidelia. If there was a difference, it was not worth the lack of convenience.

I've also briefly tried Audionirvana--from just a brief listen, I thought this sounded very good, maybe better than PM. Again, however, I missed the ease of use and convenience that PM allows me.