Audirvana 1.5.12

[PrTv]

Can anyone please point to me where I can download the 1.5.10?

[Panelhead]

Contact Damien and request he send the 1.5.10 installer .

[pl_svn]

seriously and once more: can someone, please, explain why a new thread has to be opened for each X.x.something release?

 

couldn't this be just limited to X.something versions?

[Musicophile]

seriously and once more: can someone, please, explain why a new thread has to be opened for each X.x.something release?

 

couldn't this be just limited to X.something versions?

Blame me :-)

 

I personally am not a big fan of threads that go over thousands of entries. If you're a newbie and try to make sense of what has been discussed, you need to go through tons of often useless history.

 

But obviously, we can change this for 2.0...

[doraymon]

I personally am not a big fan of threads that go over thousands of entries

 

I'm with you on this, I understand that some times threads need to focus.

 

My proposal:

We could keep the "Audirvana Plus optimizations" (LINK) only for proposals to Damien, and then have a separate thread for discussions like "Audirvana Plus 2.X", "Audirvana Plus 3.X" with no subthreads for intermediate versions.

 

Obviously the admins will have to manage...

[pl_svn]

If you're a newbie and try to make sense of what has been discussed, you need to go through tons of often useless history.

 

if you're a newby you *have to* dig thousands and thousands of posts/threads before you can dare asking a question! :-p

 

 

seriously: it will be ok also the way it is *if* "old" 3d subscriptions could be automagically carried over to the new 3d

which I believe can't be done but maybe an admin...

[Booster MPS]

Blame me :-)

 

I personally am not a big fan of threads that go over thousands of entries. If you're a newbie and try to make sense of what has been discussed, you need to go through tons of often useless history.

 

But obviously, we can change this for 2.0...

 

Musicophile I would tend to agree with you on the practice of maintaining a new thread for each release. It seems as though there are always several minute unexpected functional or audible changes that seem to come up from each release. I find it very useful to parse out the discussions on each release so that we can maintain a flowing discussion on the specific release and also have some type of archive on the release notes so that they can be searched.

 

I like the system.

[BobP63]

Musicophile I would tend to agree with you on the practice of maintaining a new thread for each release. It seems as though there are always several minute unexpected functional or audible changes that seem to come up from each release. I find it very useful to parse out the discussions on each release so that we can maintain a flowing discussion on the specific release and also have some type of archive on the release notes so that they can be searched.

 

I like the system.

 

I agree, it's easier to address specific version related issues using the current arrangement. Why someone would find this a problem I don't know, a simple title seach allows you to visit any version thread.

[pl_svn]

Why someone would find this a problem I don't know, a simple title seach allows you to visit any version thread.

 

... "maybe" because the way it is now I must come back here, search for the new thread and subscribe it every time a X.x.something new version is released?

 

would opening new threads just for X.something releases (1.4, 1.5, 1.6 etc) be an acceptable compromise?

 

(in versioning an X.something means something new has been introduced whilst X.x.something is just a bug fix or minor change)

[BobP63]

(in versioning an X.something means something new has been introduced whilst X.x.something is just a bug fix or minor change)

 

I would agree in theory; however with several X.x releases there have been changes in SQ without explination. Case in point version 1.5.10 sounds different than version 1.5.12 many including myself have returned to version 1.5.10 after installing version 1.5.12 having a separate thead for X.12 allows us to clearly convey that to Damian. Maybe once we get past these X.x idiosyncrasies a consolidated thead would be better.

[phatoldsun]

Musicophile I would tend to agree with you on the practice of maintaining a new thread for each release. It seems as though there are always several minute unexpected functional or audible changes that seem to come up from each release. I find it very useful to parse out the discussions on each release so that we can maintain a flowing discussion on the specific release and also have some type of archive on the release notes so that they can be searched.

 

I like the system.

+1. Isn't this release a perfect example? There were changes from .10 to .12 (some supposedly not in the release notes) and the users of .12 can share experiences or read the experiences of other specific to this release. If I'm staying on .10 (or roll back to .10) because of others who share about .12 then I can get the info from this thread and play in the .10 thread.

 

I'm also fine with pl_svn's suggested compromise in post #109.

 

I'm not a fan of 1000+ post threads.

[chriznatch]

Does this version of Audirvana (or any version of Audirvana) support ripping FLACs from cd's? Sorry if this is off-topic of if it has already been covered somewhere.

[wwaldmanfan]

Does this version of Audirvana (or any version of Audirvana) support ripping FLACs from cd's? Sorry if this is off-topic of if it has already been covered somewhere.

 

Audirvana is a music player. It will play FLAC's.

To rip CD's to FLAC format, use a transcoding application, like XLD.

 

X Lossless Decoder: Lossless audio decoder for Mac OS X

[jtm]

+1.

I'm not a fan of 1000+ post threads.

 

+1 for me as well.

 

I would prefer to keep a separate discussion for each version number.

 

Even though this is my preferred player software, there have been version updates I didn't like that much, therefore I stayed with some older versions I liked more.

 

Why should I bother with (hundreds of) posts commenting on version releases I don't use and I am not interested in either ?

 

If I have updated, why should continue to follow up tweaks on older releases ?

 

New threads don't cost money, don't they ?

But my time does !

[pl_svn]

New threads don't cost money, don't they ?

But my time does !

 

mine too!

 

that's why I don't like wasting it looking for the new thread on the same subject instead of letting the software do its job and automagically carry me, each time I login, to the last post I have already read!

 

a thousands pages long thread might be an issue only for those subscribing it for the first time

[jtm]

So you feel comfortable with threads like the Mytek DAC or the album of the evening ?

[BobP63]

mine too!

 

that's why I don't like wasting it looking for the new thread on the same subject instead of letting the software do its job and automagically carry me, each time I login, to the last post I have already read!

 

a thousands pages long thread might be an issue only for those subscribing it for the first time

 

Get over it already...

[doraymon]

We are now making it a 1000+ pages thread already.

Without the help of the admins we are not going to control anything anyway...

[Zakus]

mine too!

 

that's why I don't like wasting it looking for the new thread on the same subject instead of letting the software do its job and automagically carry me, each time I login, to the last post I have already read!

 

a thousands pages long thread might be an issue only for those subscribing it for the first time

 

I like wasting time looking at new threads.

[pl_svn]

Blame me :-)

 

I personally am not a big fan of threads that go over thousands of entries. If you're a newbie and try to make sense of what has been discussed, you need to go through tons of often useless history.

 

But obviously, we can change this for 2.0...

 

no one is a fan of 1000+ entries threads and I do understand your point, Musicophile but...

 

... think of the Audirvana Plus thread as a book: the way it works at present is... the book is being constantly split in single chapters (sub-sub chapters, actually) each one being a separate volume then... all these chapters composing that single book are scattered through an entire library!

 

the right way to achieve what you're aiming at would be... asking the admins to create an "Audirvana Plus" forum subsection so all that pertains to it would be grouped on, at least, a single shelf

[doraymon]

the right way to achieve what you're aiming at would be... asking the admins to create an "Audirvana Plus" forum subsection so all that pertains to it would be grouped on, at least, a single shelf

 

...which in my opinion makes a lot of sense, if you consider the number of forumers using or being interested in A+...

[BobP63]

no one is a fan of 1000+ entries threads and I do understand your point, Musicophile but...

 

"but..." You've completely derailed this thread which was specific to version 1.5.12 because "You" think it wastes to much of "Your" time.

 

Hopefully any version specific issues we've highlighted for which this thread was raised won't be lost in the unrelated noise. I think most people reading this 1.5.12 thread are interested in version specific issues and what has changed since the last released version.

 

Again I say get over it. I look forward to the next version 1.5.x thread and 2.0.x after that. Hopefully Damian will be able to retrieve the version specific concerns we've raised before getting bogged down it tread management complaints.

[pl_svn]

so... I'll do now something useful summarizing this 3d:

 

 

user X: 1.5.12 is out

user Y: yes but 1.5.10 sound is better

user Z: no it is not

user Y: I'm back to 1.5.10

user Z: well... yes... 1..5.10 is really good on this but 1.5.10 is better on that. nonetheless I'll stick to 1.5.12

user W: hey guys: how do I rip to FLAC using A+?

 

 

did I forgot something?

[doraymon]

so... I'll do now something useful summarizing this 3d:

 

 

user X: 1.5.12 is out

user Y: yes but 1.5.10 sound is better

user Z: no it is not

user Y: I'm back to 1.5.10

user Z: well... yes... 1..5.10 is really good on this but 1.5.10 is better on that. nonetheless I'll stick to 1.5.12

user W: hey guys: how do I rip to FLAC using A+?

 

 

did I forgot something?

 

Yes! That you have the possibility to suggest new points for discussion instead of discussing how and why people open new threads.

And you know the good news? You also have the possibility to unsubscribe from the thread if its content is not of your interest! :-)

[phatoldsun]

I got a 2010 MacMini (headless, no mouse and no keyboard) and I constantly experienced the volume turning down on its own since version 1.1. Less frequent with Mavericks, but still happened. Very frustrating to pick up the iPhone to use the Remote App (iTunes Integrated mode) to play a song and the volume was too low. I'd have to use a second Mac or Splashtop on iPad to log in and fix it. Kind of a buzzkill. Release .12 FIXES this issue so I'm staying with it. If there are sound quality differences between .10 and .12 they are not noticeable enough for me to care. The greater reliability wins for me.

 

Thanks for fixing this bug Damien!

 

I also had issues with empty proxies so that is no loss to me, and I like having an Apple Lossless version of DSD tracks for use on portable iDevices.

 

I'm wondering.... For those of you who are hearing sound quality differences, have you experimented with turning Direct mode on/off or compared integer mode 1 vs. 2? It would be interesting to see if you were running with Direct mode on in .10, how that compares to direct mode off in .12, for example.