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 Âdigital playback to Âmusic playback.Â
Details: rather than ÂA/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, Âthis is really clear, but it just doesnÂt 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 Âtone control for playback. The Amarra Sonic EQ, available on the full player, is the best digital EQ IÂve 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 doesnÂt raise eyebrows is $800 a showstopper?
Which is not to say there arenÂt 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.
Details: rather than ÂA/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, Âthis is really clear, but it just doesnÂt 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 Âtone control for playback. The Amarra Sonic EQ, available on the full player, is the best digital EQ IÂve 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 doesnÂt raise eyebrows is $800 a showstopper?
Which is not to say there arenÂt 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.