Amarra 2.3.2 vs Puremusic 1.82 playback software

I think this is another example of "best" being what sounds best to you when listening with your ears on your system. I tried both programs a couple of years ago and decided at that time that Pure Music was as good and a lot less expensive. Have been using it and Pure Vinyl since then, but decided to try Amarra again as both programs have been updated many times since my initial trial. For me, Amarra is the clear winner now - better, more specific soundstage, and has more detail with even less digital nasties. I notice the times when I'm in another room, music is playing, and I have to stop what I'm doing and sit down in the listening seat - that happens much more often with Amarra than Pure Music. I also am using and LIO-8 and am driving the power amp directly with a MacMini as the server. As both of the programs offer free limited-time trials, I suggest you try them both and see which one better floats your boat on your system with your ears. I had a trial version of the full Amarra package, but mini now also does 24/192 and sounds the same to me, so that is what I have. At the $200 special price, Mini is now similar in price to PM.

Mbhintz I have been reading that WAV files may sound better than FLAC. I thought that all the high resolution downloading sites do it in FLAC. Are there any that do it in WAV?

Jwm, I thought the download sites used FLAC (which is lossless of course) just to keep the file size down. Very useful with hi-res files!

Once I get the FLACs on my hard drive I can convert them to WAV or AIF. You could try the same thing, play them both and see if the music is different.

I spent the last two weeks seriously evaluating the latest version of PM vs. Amarra. Quick summary: PM is rock solid, very clean and gives a very big detailed sound stage. But, at least in my system, Amarra is much more musical and enjoyable. In fact, Amarra really crosses the border for me from “digital playback” to “music playback.”

Details: rather than “A/B” the two programs, I listened to entire pieces with one program then did the same with the other. At one point, about half way into listening to a Johann Johannsson symphony (orchestral and electronic) my wife turned to me and said, “this is really clear, but it just doesn’t have the emotional connection of listening to it on (Amarra).” Which is a pretty good summary.

To paraphrase what Audioengr pointed out up thread, there seems to be a trade off between smoothness and liveliness. I suspect that in an all tube, super smooth playback system PM might be the better choice. Note that Jon DeVore, who I have immense respect for, used PM in his DeVore Fidelity T.H.E. CES demo room – in an all tube system. In my case, this playback system is all solid state and probably a tad on the analytical side.

Two other notes: even though I use TacT room correction and my listening room is highly treated with RPG products, I still like the occasional “tone control” for playback. The Amarra Sonic EQ, available on the full player, is the best digital EQ I’ve ever heard. It sounds like the analog Cello Audio Pallet EQ I used to use at home and professionally – still my favorite. As to the price? Yes, there are cheaper players but in a community where spending five figures on system cables doesn’t raise eyebrows is $800 a showstopper?

Which is not to say there aren’t some tradeoffs. The PM code is super stable vs. the current version of Amarra, which is a little glitchy for me. Bottom line: since both programs are available free to demo (how great is that?) I highly recommend downloading both and then spending some time with each in your system to see which one is a better fit for you.

P.S. - Mods, sorry for double posting this -- I meant to post it in this thread.

Check out Audirvana Plus. Stability of PureMusic and the sound quality of Amarra.