Audirvana 1.5.12

[doraymon]

I got an issue with 1.5.10 and the iTunes Update 11.1.4

I use the Mac mini headless. Now I get a message from iTunes that volume is off (zero), that I have to confirm this with pressing the enter key. If not, iPhone remote app hangs and toggle around. This happens since the iTunes update from 11.1.3 to 11.1.4.

 

I am precisely in your situation, but I'm using A+ 1.5.12! Also running a MacMini headless.

I guess its an iTunes issue (why am I not surprised???)

[Bilderspiele]

I mark the checkbox "never remind again" in the message. No more message again and no need to have a keyboard activated.

[PrTv]

I, too, found that this version sounds different than 1.5.10, but I haven't had time to evaluate whether it's for the better or worse.

 

That said, my biggest problem with this new version is Damien's decision to remove the "full proxy" mode. I haven't had any issue with this mode with iTunes before and loved to use it since I can import anything almost instantly, but now without that mode, I have to use "very lossy" mode to import albums to iTunes. I'm now importing 7-8 SACDs and it takes hours to finish. Not only does this mode take a long time, it's also not very efficient. Checking system properties while converting, I found that only 25% of CPU is used (only 1 instead of all (4) cores). I think this conversion would be significantly faster if the program can utilize all CPU cores.

 

I'd love to see the full proxy mode in the next release, or more efficient conversion algorithm.

[JohanS]

Hi Damien, considering the remarks here on this site and your own forum, it seems a good idea to enable proxy-only files again, and perhaps exclude the possibility to create these for specific files which cause erroneous behaviour with iTunes (DSD?). Personally, I have never experienced any problem with proxy-only files. All my original files are FLAC with various compression (mostly none / 0 or default / 5) and bitrates varying from 16-44 to 24-192.

 

On the other hand, if v2.0 is released real soon, well I guess we can wait then...

 

I haven't judged SQ of 1.5.12, as I'm really extremely satisfied with 1.5.10. It sounds so realistic!

[jhwalker]

I, too, found that this version sounds different than 1.5.10, but I haven't had time to evaluate whether it's for the better or worse.

 

That said, my biggest problem with this new version is Damien's decision to remove the "full proxy" mode. I haven't had any issue with this mode with iTunes before and loved to use it since I can import anything almost instantly, but now without that mode, I have to use "very lossy" mode to import albums to iTunes. I'm now importing 7-8 SACDs and it takes hours to finish. Not only does this mode take a long time, it's also not very efficient. Checking system properties while converting, I found that only 25% of CPU is used (only 1 instead of all (4) cores). I think this conversion would be significantly faster if the program can utilize all CPU cores.

 

I'd love to see the full proxy mode in the next release, or more efficient conversion algorithm.

 

Converting a full length album DSD download to lossless (24/44) takes only seconds (at most, a minute or two) on my machine. Have you tried using lossless instead of lossy? I wonder if it should take that much longer just to create a lossy version or if just creating a small lossless file might work better for you, despite the slight size penalty.

[kennyb123]

That said, my biggest problem with this new version is Damien's decision to remove the "full proxy" mode. I haven't had any issue with this mode with iTunes before and loved to use it since I can import anything almost instantly, but now without that mode, I have to use "very lossy" mode to import albums to iTunes.

 

I also never had an issue with the "no sound" option and am also disappointed that this was removed. I went back to 1.5.10.

 

A warning about the removal of this feature should have been included in the update notice as I would have passed on upgrading. I had to go to Time Machine to retrieve 1.5.10. A minor hassle that could have been avoided.

 

 

I found that only 25% of CPU is used (only 1 instead of all (4) cores). I think this conversion would be significantly faster if the program can utilize all CPU cores.

 

Excellent feedback. I had once attempted to use my Mac Pro to create the proxy files with sound in hopes it would go faster with the four cores vs the two in my Mac Mini. Was bummed that only one core was utilized.

 

I'd love to see the full proxy mode in the next release, or more efficient conversion algorithm.

 

Speed of adding these proxy files matters as I usually rip SACDs in batches and then add them to A+ in batches. With the "no sound" option I can add these in no time at all. This was one of my favorite features in A+ as I hated how long this took when I used to use Pure Music.

[One and a half]

Just one thought for people who, regularly in these threads about new versions, need an earlier version of A+ or another music player like Amarra.

 

Here's what I do, that has twin advantages:

When I hear there's a new version, say of A+, I go to that site and download the new version. I do NOT download the new version through the older version of the application itself.

 

Then, I rename the file: What was "Audirvana Plus" is now "Audirvana Plus 1.5.12" and the previous version is named "Audirvana Plus 1.5.10"…and so on.

 

So, I have not lost the earlier version.

But perhaps more important, I leave both versions in my Applications folder, and in my Dock, and can go back and forth between them as needed.

This works, because with A+ at least, the settings file can be shared between two versions of the application.

 

And then, only when I'm satisfied with the new version, I backup -- still never trash -- the older version.

 

Dave, who says while both versions are installed in the Applications folder only one is launched at a time

 

Are there two plist files for each .app or is there only one plist file?

[PrTv]

Converting a full length album DSD download to lossless (24/44) takes only seconds (at most, a minute or two) on my machine. Have you tried using lossless instead of lossy? I wonder if it should take that much longer just to create a lossy version or if just creating a small lossless file might work better for you, despite the slight size penalty.

 

My only problem, my friend, is space.

 

I want to play my music at highest quality possible, so I'd like SACD signal to be fed to my DAC (which is DSD capable). As I already have SACD image(s) on my HDD, it'd be redundant to have another copy of the same thing in LossLess 24/44 format.

 

Actually, I'd prefer not to waste any space at all, but since that Lossy pointer files are so small, their size don't bother me much, but the time required to create them does. Yesterday I imported areound 200+ DSD songs (in various SACD ISOs) and I think it took over 2 hours to complete. So I'd love to see the comeback of that Full Proxy import.

[jamesg11]

So how do I get back to 1.5.10 to check on SQ? Just updated last couple of times ... got lazy!

[doraymon]

So how do I get back to 1.5.10 to check on SQ? Just updated last couple of times ... got lazy!

 

Ask Damien to send you the 1.5.10 installer and as Cycleman said (and I am also doing) you can install both versions at the same time without any problem.

 

I did some A/B testing with 1.5.10 and 1.5.12 and to be honest I struggle to hear any difference in sound quality.

 

I tried with many different kinds and formats of music (from electro, to rock and classical, from AAC to 24/96) but I couldn't perceive the better sounding of the 1.5.10 that more than one here noticed.

 

This probably depends on the fact that I'm not experienced enough, anyhow... so far so good!

[odelay]

I much prefer the sound of 1.5.10. It sounds brilliant.

 

After going back to A+ 1.5.10 (from 1.5.12), the difference seemed stark. Life returned to the music.

 

On my system, I experienced something similar to what Alex described. Bass was strange and inflated. Moreover, there was a flatness to the music that left me bored. I didn't nail it down ... not sure if dynamics or transients differ, but it may be something along those lines?

 

Hope Damien can bring the magic of 1.5.10 back for the next release - along with solving the proxy issue for you iTunes folk :-)

[PrTv]

Speaking about SQ, I just noticed that I missed ver 1.5.10 (updated from 1.5.09 to 1.5.12). I tried going to Audirvana website and change the file name on the download page from 1.5.12.dmg to 1.5.10.dmg but couldn't download the version 1.5.10 file (it worked before).

 

Is there any way to get the previous version?

[Cycleman]

Are there two plist files for each .app or is there only one plist file?

 

Only one, and each version automatically shares it.

 

So, if I make preferences changes with one version, quit it and launch the other version, those preferences changes are intact.

 

Nice.

[jhwalker]

My only problem, my friend, is space.

 

I want to play my music at highest quality possible, so I'd like SACD signal to be fed to my DAC (which is DSD capable). As I already have SACD image(s) on my HDD, it'd be redundant to have another copy of the same thing in LossLess 24/44 format.

 

Actually, I'd prefer not to waste any space at all, but since that Lossy pointer files are so small, their size don't bother me much, but the time required to create them does. Yesterday I imported areound 200+ DSD songs (in various SACD ISOs) and I think it took over 2 hours to complete. So I'd love to see the comeback of that Full Proxy import.

 

Gotcha.

[tipunch]

No, no, I much prefer the sound of version 1.5.12. I put back the version 1.5.10 to listen to during several days. But the version 1.5.12 missed me, this a little more analytical side, the drum is more hard-hitting, the clearer voices… I know not if the corrections (in 1.5.12) for the Mytek are for some things, but for me the version 1.5.12 is fantastic!!

Damien please does not change the SQ!!

What think the owners of Mytek?

[odelay]

Well, slap me sideways and call me Shirley!

Thanks for sharing guys. I don't know what was going on a few days ago, but I can't blame 10.5.12.

 

After some comparisons, I prefer 1.5.12.

 

I would suggest people compare it for themselves. I can imagine views being split. I'm still torn and have yet to get my head around the changes.

 

To borrow Srajan's visual analogy, it's like the contrast ratio has been pushed up. This brings things into sharper relief, but wondered if this extra clarity was at the expense of the shades of grey that makes music so magical. I feel like I'm missing the complete harmonic envelope of the note.

 

Listening to some spider-weby piano, it seemed that the sustain was almost absent on 1.5.12. Analogue tape hiss pretty much vanished (on Ella and Louis (DSD)). I fear the ambient detail we prize so much might be lost. But as always - I may well be off ....

[Superdad]

I feel like I'm missing the complete harmonic envelope of the note.

 

Listening to some spider-weby piano, it seemed that the sustain was almost absent on 1.5.12. Analogue tape hiss pretty much vanished (on Ella and Louis (DSD)). I fear the ambient detail we prize so much might be lost. But as always - I may well be off ....

 

Odelay: Based on your description, it sounds like you prefer 1.5.10 and not 1.5.12, but your opening (and previous post) remarks confuse. Please verify for us.

 

Of course it is no problem for me if some people prefer 1.5.12 or 1.5.10. But I think Odelay's descriptions in posts #91 and #86 are consistent with what I am hearing in my system. I find it to be a pretty stark difference.

 

I am not too worried though. When Damien releases the first betas of 2.0 (with all the planned new playlist functionality and who knows what else), I am sure there will be a series of betas (to be sure everything is working well with the broad range of user systems), and that the SQ will wiggle around a bit. I'll use 1.5.10 as a reference for musical "magic" and "rightness," and I'll shout it out loud when a particular 2.x beta or full release matches its high-water mark.

 

Best,

ALEX

[doraymon]

Odelay: Based on your description, it sounds like you prefer 1.5.10 and not 1.5.12, but your opening (and previous post) remarks confuse. Please verify for us.

 

Of course it is no problem for me if some people prefer 1.5.12 or 1.5.10. But I think Odelay's descriptions in posts #91 and #86 are consistent with what I am hearing in my system. I find it to be a pretty stark difference.

I think that Odelay's confusion, or uncertainty, is more than understandable. As I wrote I was hardly perceiving a difference yesterday.

Today however, I tried with more tracks, and more often with HD tracks and, despite my initial scepticism, I admit that now I can tell there is a difference.

Poked by this discussion I decided to do blind tests on 6 tracks, each heard 4 times alternating the A+ version (.10 and .12). I skip the description on how I made sure it was a blind test, but it was.

 

Result: 22 times out of 24 I indicated 1.5.10 as the best sounding. The other two I could perceive no difference.

These two cases were both with the only AAC file of the group. The other 5 tracks were all CD rips.

 

I would describe the sound of 1.5.10 as more open, deep and "joyful". Other terms I could use is more involving and rich. Though the difference for me is not so evident during "occasional listening".

[Superdad]

Doraymon: Thanks for all that hard work. Get's old listening to the same tracks over and over, doesn't it?

 

I am curious, was your test done with speakers or headphones? You list both in your signature and while I am not much of a headphone listener, I know some people like to do critical listening that way.

 

Best,

ALEX

[doraymon]

Doraymon: Thanks for all that hard work. Get's old listening to the same tracks over and over, doesn't it?

 

I am curious, was your test done with speakers or headphones? You list both in your signature and while I am not much of a headphone listener, I know some people like to do critical listening that way.

 

Best,

ALEX

 

Ha ha Superdad, no hard work. It was a pleasure! I had some spare time and I enjoyed it!

 

The test was done with the CM9 speakers. It is still the best way I enjoy music at the moment.

I'm not at full speed with the headphones setup. I will buy a very good dedicated tube headphone amp, but can't afford it now.

[BobP63]

As stated earlier, I switched back to 1.5.10 because I believe it's SQ is better for all the reasons previously mentioned by others.

 

My concern is why? Neither the .10 nor .12 releases were beta and SQ changes were not mentioned in the .12 release notes, which was the prior practice. We had a period within the 1.4.x betas where unanticipated SQ changes took place; however I thought we were past that stage of development. Hopefully Damien can chime in and let us know his thoughts on what may have happened with this latest release.

[odelay]

This flip-flopper returns to 1.5.10

 

Apologies for my confused posts. My rig and ears are modest, so take my comments with generous helping of salt...

 

1.5.10 seems to pack more musical goodness into each note. The texture seems richer and fuller as others have mentioned.

 

On a high note with 1.5.12

With 1.5.12, some violins (2L) are less piercing on the ear. 1.5.10 left my ears a little scrunched up and sore. My app picked up just 1dB difference, so I don't think it's simply a case of the treble being louder on 1.5.10. But it's more than likely that my rig doesn't handle that frequency as smoothly as I'd like. (Maybe I'll have to resort to using AudioUnits.. shudder..)

 

Does anyone else prefer sharp violins with 1.5.12?

 

I'm with Bob - I'm clueless as to how Damien's tweaking the sound. It's been mentioned before that some changes were unintended...

 

i would like the sound of 1.5.10, but with the softer treble of 1.5.12.

 

But that's wishful thinking... I hope we can get some kind of consensus to make it a little less complicated for Damien. Fingers crossed! luke

[mkrzych]

This flip-flopper returns to 1.5.10

 

Apologies for my confused posts. My rig and ears are modest, so take my comments with generous helping of salt...

 

1.5.10 seems to pack more musical goodness into each note. The texture seems richer and fuller as others have mentioned.

 

On a high note with 1.5.12

With 1.5.12, some violins (2L) are less piercing on the ear. 1.5.10 left my ears a little scrunched up and sore. My app picked up just 1dB difference, so I don't think it's simply a case of the treble being louder on 1.5.10. But it's more than likely that my rig doesn't handle that frequency as smoothly as I'd like. (Maybe I'll have to resort to using AudioUnits.. shudder..)

 

Does anyone else prefer sharp violins with 1.5.12?

 

I'm with Bob - I'm clueless as to how Damien's tweaking the sound. It's been mentioned before that some changes were unintended...

 

i would like the sound of 1.5.10, but with the softer treble of 1.5.12.

 

But that's wishful thinking... I hope we can get some kind of consensus to make it a little less complicated for Damien. Fingers crossed! luke

 

I didn't listened too much to violins, but to me, at least on my Grado 325is's when I switched to 1.5.12 pianos were really better, I don't want to full myself reading all this posts, but I do not use any upsamplings (set up to none) and the stream was 24/44 recording over optical toslink from Macbook Pro to my DAC. In 1.5.10 piano was dummy without the rich timbre in comparison to the latest release.

 

My opinion is without Damien, we do not really know if anything has changed, so would be nice to chime for him here. In 1.5.12 I don't like the long time to convert files to the proxy ones, but that's a different story.

[tipunch]

I didn't listened too much to violins, but to me, at least on my Grado 325is's when I switched to 1.5.12 pianos were really better, I don't want to full myself reading all this posts, but I do not use any upsamplings (set up to none) and the stream was 24/44 recording over optical toslink from Macbook Pro to my DAC. In 1.5.10 piano was dummy without the rich timbre in comparison to the latest release.

 

And of course any upsamplings for SQ test !!!

[odelay]

Good point Krzysztof - I am not using any upsampling, either. Although, my DAC does upsample everything into oblivion...

I didn't do any tinkering with AudioUnits, either for that matter.

 

The troublesome violin was particularly sharp. Most violins play perfectly sweetly on 1.5.10 here..

 

I believe it is the added detail on the trail of each note that I like so much about 1.5.10.

One example that highlighted this was one from Yo Yo Ma (the opening cut from his album of Marcini soundtrack covers - 'Mission' - DSD). It's a thing of beauty, radiating great warmth. I wasn't nearly as engaged listening through 1.5.12... It sounded flatter/colder... more clinical, as if going through the motions. Not as musical, if you prefer.

 

But of course, I'm exaggerating - 1.5.12 is fantastic... just not as fantabulous as 1.5.10.. in my book. I tried to avoid such hyperbole in my earlier posts... but it can be useful..

 

If you are comparing them, I suggest playing something simple that moves you. I found simpler tracks that allow you to hear the trailing of each note best for comparing these two versions. I can well understand that some people would prefer the sense of clarity of 1.5.12.