Audirvana Plus optimizations

[Jud]

I don't want to start a debate on which is a better but I'd think that from an engineering point of view the ideal DAC should be completely immune the quality of the input signal and of the power line but I know that such an ideal DAC does not exist.

 

Lots of interesting connections here. PeterSt says his Phasure DAC should be immune to USB cable changes, but not to noise from the computer (though ideally he would like it to be). I think some of the reports about not hearing differences may be due to people having cleaner power, for instance, not necessarily less revealing systems.

 

It was pretty remarkable, though, the degree to which my impressions independently corresponded with Superdad's. We have no hardware in common, I upsample, he doesn't, we listened to different music, yet our comments that crossed in email each said things like "Beta B gets pianos right, but Beta A is better on acoustic bass, acoustic guitar, and vocals." Down to that level of detail - twice.

[JohanS]

Well, after reading above discussions, I decided to go for route 3: enjoy the music -

But not without comparing B7 to 1.5.4. I find less tonal differences between this two versions, which is a good thing. Still B7 offers a bit more acoustic ambience / reflections. I didn't try yet, but I guess B11 will show even more 'ambience'. 1.5.4 sounds a bit cleaner or dryer. Soundstage is nice: no more flattened, but extends beyond the postions of my left and right speakers and the wall behind them.

 

I raised the question before whether the amount of reverberation in B11 is a good thing. For those with high-end system this acoustic information is translated into the definition of the soundstage. On cheaper systems his might give a congested sound. A+ should serve the needs of both groups...

[pl_svn]

...a few days without the time to sit down and listen to some music but finally today... Haendel, Bach, Charpentier, Marais: this thing's sound is stunning!!!

 

thank you very much to Damien and... those who keep helping/testing/fine-tuning so I can just sit and go for "route 3" ;-p

[Neil]

Should advanced parameters settings remain the same with different A+ versions? Ie steepness, max filter length etc? I'm now running 1.5.4

[wwaldmanfan]

Well, after reading above discussions, I decided to go for route 3: enjoy the music -

But not without comparing B7 to 1.5.4. I find less tonal differences between this two versions, which is a good thing. Still B7 offers a bit more acoustic ambience / reflections. I didn't try yet, but I guess B11 will show even more 'ambience'. 1.5.4 sounds a bit cleaner or dryer. Soundstage is nice: no more flattened, but extends beyond the postions of my left and right speakers and the wall behind them.

 

I raised the question before whether the amount of reverberation in B11 is a good thing. For those with high-end system this acoustic information is translated into the definition of the soundstage. On cheaper systems his might give a congested sound. A+ should serve the needs of both groups...

 

As one here with a "cheaper" system, I find your comments interesting, and have the same impression that B11 seems to have a bit more reverberation, but I would not describe it as "congested" sounding, since, I suppose, I set my upsampling parameters very low--steepness 5, 500k samples, Nyquist 1.02, AA 200, pre-ring 1.0. I find that higher forced upsampling tends to muddle the instruments/vocals too much for me and flatten the sound.

 

Although I enjoy reading this thread, and the CA forum in general, I think you have to work out and settle on an averaged setting and, as you say, just go with it, rather than constantly fiddling around, or this technical stuff will drive you crazy. There's so much disparity of quality in various recordings, even amongst different releases and reissues of the same album, that the "perfect" sound is elusive.

 

With my setup, though, I'm not adverse to using the AUlowpass filter (15kHz, -6db) if a particular recording sounds too bright or sibilant.

[Blake]

Jud and Superdad:

 

Am I correct to infer that if a user applies the user's preferred iZotope Settings and Upsampling in A+, by doing so, that user is also lessening or even completely removing the sound signature of the user's DAC?

 

If so, I am wondering if spending money on more expensive DAC's makes sense for such A+ user.

 

I realize that the answer may hinge upon the design of the particular DAC in question, namely, whether the user's DAC accepts input at the same res to which it upsamples internally, which nullifies the DAC's internal chip interpolation filter.

 

I may also be totally confused.

 

Thanks, Blake

[Jud]

Jud and Superdad:

 

Am I correct to infer that if a user applies the user's preferred iZotope Settings and Upsampling in A+, by doing so, that user is also lessening or even completely removing the sound signature of the user's DAC?

 

If so, I am wondering if spending money on more expensive DAC's makes sense for such A+ user.

 

I realize that the answer may hinge upon the design of the particular DAC in question, namely, whether the user's DAC accepts input at the same res to which it upsamples internally, which nullifies the DAC's internal chip interpolation filter.

 

I may also be totally confused.

 

Thanks, Blake

 

I highlighted what I consider the key point. This is not the case for the vast majority of DACs. Most DACs these days seem to accept output at a max of "4x" rates (176.4/192kHz) and commonly use "8x" rates (352.8/384) as the rate to which the DAC chip upsamples/oversamples/interpolates internally. So what you will get when you oversample with iZotope is a change in the oversampling "mix." A typical DAC gets to 8x rates using three rounds of 2x interpolation. So what happens when you upsample a Redbook file in A+/iZotope before feeding the signal into a typical DAC with a max 192kHz input is you substitute one round of 4x interpolation with iZotope (44.1 to 176.4) for 2 rounds of 2x interpolation (44.1 to 88.2; 88.2 to 176.4) in the DAC chip. Then the DAC chip interpolates 2x to 352.8.

 

Getting a little more into the weeds: In a typical DAC, the 352.8 signal will go to a sigma-delta modulator and get changed into essentially DSD before being converted from that to analog. Very few DACs skip this step, I think generally just older chips ("new old stock" when used as they sometimes are in new DACs) - someone correct me if I'm wrong here. This may be a reason why a lot of folks seem to like "native" DSD - it doesn't have to go through this sigma-delta modulation step, since DSD already *is* in sigma-delta modulated form.

 

So what you have is a combination of A+/iZotope upsampling and the internal DAC chip's upsampling. How these two work together (or whether the DAC's filter will tend to substitute for the preceding A+/iZotope filter) is a subject for someone who knows a lot more about filters than I do, like Alexey Lukin, Miska, PeterSt....

 

If you do have a DAC that accepts input at the same rates that it would use internally (8x rates usually; less commonly 4x rates), then oversampling with A+/iZotope will avoid the internal interpolation filter, but not the sigma-delta modulator.

[Blake]

Jud: Thanks for taking the time to respond. This is helpful information.

 

Blake

[ZagatoV12]

I thought I would, possibly unhelpfully, offer my simple observations on some changes in my setup I made today. Having been off this forum for many weeks, I just today learned of all the discussion about the most recent versions of Audirvana and the debate over whether the earlier A+ betas offered superior SQ or not and then whether the most recent version of 1.5 had caught back up again.

 

Well, before logging on here, I had auto-upgraded to the latest and greatest A+, well before I read all those posts and so, having been alerted and to hear for myself, I went back from V1.5 something to V1.4.9.7 and was agreeably surprised that the suggestions that was a 'better' version were right on the money. Then I read there was also a later version of the Invicta DAC firmware (V5) that some posts here were claiming SQ improvements for so I upgraded that as well.

 

The overall improvement from these two changes was an unexpected but extremely welcome gain in instrumental realism, transparency/air and soloist's 'intimacy' on orchestral DSD material. Dvorak's Concerto for Cello by Pieter Wispelway and the Budapest Festival Orchestra from Channel Classics recorded in DSD was a grin producing revelation after these changes. Excellent combination!

 

Thank you Damien and Resonessence Labs. Not sure what will happen next, but I'm 'Very Chuffed', as they say :-)

[Toddc2]

I am running a trial version of 1.5.4 on a MacBook Pro 10.8.4. I own two other players on this Mac (Amarra and JRMC) but wanted to try A+ for DSD files. JRMC supports DSD over DoP but I am not thrilled with performance. My DAC is a W4S DAC2se.

 

To my ears, DSD sounds a little better on A+ compared to JRMC. Cleaner, more detail, better. However, it still sounds a little veiled and doesn't sound nearly as good as Amarra on non-DSD material. One example: I was listening to Blake Shelton's "Boys 'Round Here" (HDTracks 24/88). The background singers sound almost holographic via Amarra but sound recessed via A+. Also, I'm not getting the huge sound stage via A+. It's sounds good, just not great.

 

Here are my A+ settings, can someone please take a look and comment on how to get better performance?

 

AUDIO SYSTEM

 

Native DSD Capability - DSD over PCM version 1.0

Exclusive access mode (checked)

Direct Mode (checked)

Integer Mode (checked with Mode 1 selected)

Maximum memory allocated for tracks pre-load (5,120 MB out of 8 GB total)

Max sample rate (no limit)

Spl rate switching latency (none)

Limit max bit depth to 24 (NOT checked)

 

Thanks

 

Todd

[T-bar]

Well, if you are at the point where you appreciate the difference between versions of A+ (you know, people elsewhere on this site don't even believe that "bit-perfect" players even sound different from one another--Ha!), then you really ought to consider upgrading to Mountain Lion. I was reluctant last year (because SL is so stable and simple), but in a very carefully controlled test (everything exactly Apples-to-Apples) Mountain Lion won easily on sound quality. A few weeks ago I rebooted into my stripped-down SL partition just to check (and to retrieve some things I had stored there). No doubt. So I finally deleted the SL partition.

Of course, YMMV...

Superdad,

I have been holding onto Snow Leopard because of the stability, and I really like Pure Music integer mode on Snow Leopard. Before you did away with your partition, did you by any chance compare PM integer on 10.6.8 with the current A+? I'd be interested in your opinion.

Thanks!

[Musicophile]

I am running a trial version of 1.5.4 on a MacBook Pro 10.8.4. I own two other players on this Mac (Amarra and JRMC) but wanted to try A+ for DSD files. JRMC supports DSD over DoP but I am not thrilled with performance. My DAC is a W4S DAC2se.

 

To my ears, DSD sounds a little better on A+ compared to JRMC. Cleaner, more detail, better. However, it still sounds a little veiled and doesn't sound nearly as good as Amarra on non-DSD material. One example: I was listening to Blake Shelton's "Boys 'Round Here" (HDTracks 24/88). The background singers sound almost holographic via Amarra but sound recessed via A+. Also, I'm not getting the huge sound stage via A+. It's sounds good, just not great.

 

Here are my A+ settings, can someone please take a look and comment on how to get better performance?

 

AUDIO SYSTEM

 

Native DSD Capability - DSD over PCM version 1.0

Exclusive access mode (checked)

Direct Mode (checked)

Integer Mode (checked with Mode 1 selected)

Maximum memory allocated for tracks pre-load (5,120 MB out of 8 GB total)

Max sample rate (no limit)

Spl rate switching latency (none)

Limit max bit depth to 24 (NOT checked)

 

Thanks

 

Todd

Your setup looks just fine. I'm surprised, as on my system, Audirvana sounds anything but veiled. It is actually more analytical and detail oriented than Amarra. Maybe it's just that whatever Amarra does to the sound has a better synergy with your DAC. Richard (REShaman) has the same and he also prefers Amarra on his system.

 

I'm personally torn between Audirvana and Amarra, but wouldn't want to miss either of them.

[wdw]

Your setup looks just fine. I'm surprised, as on my system, Audirvana sounds anything but veiled. It is actually more analytical and detail oriented than Amarra. Maybe it's just that whatever Amarra does to the sound has a better synergy with your DAC. Richard (REShaman) has the same and he also prefers Amarra on his system.

 

I'm personally torn between Audirvana and Amarra, but wouldn't want to miss either of them.

 

Gents,

 

I'm firmly in the A+ camp (certainly not my grades at school, btw) but am very intrigued by the comments from Empirical Audio. Steve Nugent, (let's hope there's no relation to Ted) firmly believes Amarra DSP processing to be the best. I, after reading this, was at a loss as this is all new to me but the argument suggests some exciting possibilities.

WDW

[Musicophile]

Gents,

 

I'm firmly in the A+ camp (certainly not my grades at school, btw) but am very intrigued by the comments from Empirical Audio. Steve Nugent, (let's hope there's no relation to Ted) firmly believes Amarra DSP processing to be the best. I, after reading this, was at a loss as this is all new to me but the argument suggests some exciting possibilities.

WDW

Well, if you haven't tried, give Amarra the 14 day free go. It is certainly a great piece of software (soundwise, not necessarily from the user-friendliness). I had been living with Amarra Hifi quite a bit and recently upgraded to Amarra (regular).

 

I end up using Amarra and A+ about 50/50, and it is great to have the choice. I'ts like getting a 2nd hifi for less than $200.

[Jud]

Gents,

 

I'm firmly in the A+ camp (certainly not my grades at school, btw) but am very intrigued by the comments from Empirical Audio. Steve Nugent, (let's hope there's no relation to Ted) firmly believes Amarra DSP processing to be the best. I, after reading this, was at a loss as this is all new to me but the argument suggests some exciting possibilities.

WDW

 

Since A+ doesn't use DSP (except through the new plugins capability), what Steve Nugent says makes perfect sense.

[tipunch]

Hello,

Did somebody succeed in playing DSD with Audirvana + (1.5.4) and Benchmark DAC2 under Mountain Lion (10.8.4) ???

(No problems under Lion (10.7.5), it worked perfectly !!!)

Many thanks for your advice in advance.

[Toddc2]

Your setup looks just fine. I'm surprised, as on my system, Audirvana sounds anything but veiled. It is actually more analytical and detail oriented than Amarra. Maybe it's just that whatever Amarra does to the sound has a better synergy with your DAC. Richard (REShaman) has the same and he also prefers Amarra on his system.

 

I'm personally torn between Audirvana and Amarra, but wouldn't want to miss either of them.

 

Thanks for the feedback on my settings. I was hoping I had something wrong in my setup. I'll give the A+ some more time in my system, but it's pretty clear that I will stick with Amarra for non-DSD material based on it's current performance in my system. The real question is if A+ will consistently beat JRMC18 playing DSD, in which case it will be worth buying a license. I may buy it anyway just to have access to it...

[Just4fun]

Hello,

Did somebody succeed in playing DSD with Audirvana + (1.5.4) and Benchmark DAC2 under Mountain Lion (10.8.4) ???

(No problems under Lion (10.7.5), it worked perfectly !!!)

Many thanks for your advice in advance.

I've just checked with some DSD files - works perfectly with 10.8.4 and A+ 1.5.4

 

I remember another related discussion a while ago in this forum. To use DoP in this particular combination, both volume knobs need to be set to maximum - one is the Audio MIDI (OSX preference) and the other is the volume knob of A+

 

Hope this helps.

[Superdad]

 

Pssst... A+ 1.5.5 is coming! (Wednesday per Damian)

 

I got a sneak peek (listen) tonight. And it is AWESOME!!! BEST VERSION EVER--by a long way--but it may take getting used to for some people/systems. The most real vocals--and vocal harmonies--I have EVER had in my room (freaked me out a couple of times). The resonant body of instruments is amazing. With giant plucked acoustic bass (Brian Bromberg) I could see the string vibrate and buzz.

Shows the limitations of even the best recordings (but differently for each so it is not an overlay).

 

Did not take long for 1.5.5 to win me over (its a big leap), but I spent about a 90 minutes comparing it to all my prior "best" versions:

 

1.4.9.7 (showing its age now);

1.5.2.3 (unreleased but very good and most similar to 1.5.3);

1.5.3 (my favorite release prior to tomorrow's)

1.5.4 (my least favorite in a while--I was VERY critical of it to Damian just before his vacation--really rubs me the wrong way in a lot areas)

 

Holy cow, Richard Thompson is wailing in the background now (from Front Parlour Ballads), and the bass, guitar, drums, and vocals are absolutely spooky! With some other artists, the real timbre/tone of their voice is being revealed to me for the VERY first time.

 

So all you Aurdirvana lovers: Watch this space tomorrow--and enjoy the fruits of whatever mysterious breakthroughs Damien has made. Guess his vacation did him some good...

 

Cheers,

Alex

[odelay]

I'm excited :-)

Thanks for the heads up Alex.

 

I've been listening through beta 6 (thanks to you Alex). On other versions, i found the bass constricted - along with the length of each note. Sounds like Damien might have worked on that :-)

[JohanS]

Oh wow, that's exciting news! And I may hope that sound will be stable amongst the versions that will arrive later on. And Damien: welcome back! Hope the remote control for A+ is on your priority list

[damien78]

And here is the 1.5.5 unveiled by Superdad!

It is now available through the automated update feature ("Check for updates" in Audirvana Plus menu)

It brings, in addition to the audible SQ improvement:

• SysOptimizer: add option to increase Audirvana Plus priority for better Sound Quality
  
• Configurable gain boost for DSD to PCM conversion. Default set to +6dB (comparable sound level as native DSD playback)
  
• Gapless transition when using filters (Audio Units and/or sample rate conversion)
  

 

Enjoy

 

And I'm now going to some more days of vacations before working on the next big thing... (Not only Remote app...)

 

Damien

[Melvin]

Thanks Damien!

[wwaldmanfan]

Damian, it sounds fantastic. Merci beaucoup!

[odelay]

Awesome sound.

 

From all I've heard so far, I agree with Alex - best version yet.

Japanese drums were thunderous... the startle factor was terrifying.

 

Fabulous work Damien - your talents and efforts are much appreciated.

I tip my hat to you once again. Kudos :-)

 

P.S. Looking forward to ipad app

I've been having fun playing with TeamViewer on the iPad to control A+ in playlist mode. It's rather clunky, but it works... kind of. I look forward to a more elegant solution down the track.... but I can wait. I'm thrilled with the improvement in sound.