Audirvana 1.5.10 have best SQ so far

[Bilderspiele]

Yesterday, I compare Audirvana 1.5.10 & 1.5.12 w/ & w/o iTunes integration mode under System 10.9.4 w/ iTunes 11.3 on a stock Mac mini i7 2,3 GHz 16 GB Late 2012.

 

Version 1.5.10 w/o iTunes integration is the winner in clearity. In every other scenario especially with iTunes integration I can hear distortions.

 

I will stay with version 1.5.10 as long as I get something better for my multichannel flac files.

 

I use Mavericks direct mode via HDMI into a Denon 3808A. Speakers are VOX 252 in an acustical treated room with short delays. Submanagement sends frequencies under 80 Hz to a Dual Bass Array.

[mkrzych]

Yesterday, I compare Audirvana 1.5.10 & 1.5.12 w/ & w/o iTunes integration mode under System 10.9.4 w/ iTunes 11.3 on a stock Mac mini i7 2,3 GHz 16 GB Late 2012.

 

Version 1.5.10 w/o iTunes integration is the winner in clearity. In every other scenario especially with iTunes integration I can hear distortions.

 

I will stay with version 1.5.10 as long as I get something better for my multichannel flac files.

 

I use Mavericks direct mode via HDMI into a Denon 3808A. Speakers are VOX 252 in an acustical treated room with short delays. Submanagement sends frequencies under 80 Hz to a Dual Bass Array.

 

Do you hear difference with sound level with and without iTunes integrations? Sometimes I can notice that with iTunes integration the output level is lower than without it?

[Bilderspiele]

Hard to tell. But doesn't matter. Distortions sounds louder.

[Lee Henley]

For me in my system I prefer 1.5.9, it clearly sounds the best compared to 1.5.10

 

I recently did a blind test with a very good friend of mine who has an excellent ear and he preferred the 1.5.9 by a country mile!

[Blake]

Historically I used Playlist Mode for superior sonics. Over time I grew to HATE the poor user interface of Playlist Mode, so I switched to the convenience of iTunes Integration Mode.

 

I intentionally avoided any comparisons between the two settings over the last 6 months, because I feared that Playlist Mode would still be sonically superior. A few weeks ago, curiosity got the best of me and I compared. Playlist Mode is still sonically superior, even with the latest A+ versions.

 

Damn it!!!

 

Back to Playlist Mode (until it drives me crazy again).

[eltee00]

Blake, just like you I went with playlist mode for the longest time. Then I find that the process of setting up the playlists everytime I want to listen to music is taking away the enjoyment. I've gone on to use itunes integration mode and now love sitting back on my couch with my ipad and listening to music with the convenience of the Remote app.

 

I know that I'm taking a hit in sound quality but as long as, like you, I don't go back into Playlist mode and make comparison I am happy with using iTunes integration mode.

[Lee Henley]

Im pretty much the same as you two guys (Blake and Eltee00), I had been using the playlist mode myself for some time but found it annoying so in the end I went back to itunes integrated mode, the sound IS better in playlist mode but for the time being I can live with the itunes mode

[Bilderspiele]

I spend to much money in speakers and room treatment. I could hear the distortions from iTunes integration at the first time I listen to Audirvana+. I use the screens app on iPhone 5 to manage the playlist on my mini. For skipping songs I use the Apple remote stick.

[Carl Mawer]

Read this. Controlling Audirvana in Stand-Alone Mode with iTunes and Remote.app - Blogs - Computer Audiophile It works perfectly

[Bilderspiele]

I try this out later today. Thanks

[edo]

I am using 1.5.12. How can I acquire 1.5.9 and 1.5.10?

[jtm]

Send a PM or email to Damien (founder and developer of Audirvana).

He is very cooperative and might help you.

[Panelhead]

This is why I am using PM2. It is very easy to toggle Less is More on and off.

I cannot understand why iTunes integration affects the sonics. But playback is better without it.

The difference is easy to hear.

[edo]

I want to thank jvlata for helping me out with this.

[sdolezalek]

Personally, I'm going to rely on the fact that Damien will both solve the iTunes integration problem (we won't need iTunes at all) and deliver the best sound quality yet with version 2.0. So I'm standing pat for now and cheering Damien on.

[Mike Pinkerton]

If A+ loads the sound file into ram, how on earth can the sound differ between iTunes and playlist modes? What happens if you turn off the settings for updating the progress and volume in preferences? Does that help?

 

Someone should also ask Damien for a list of changes between .10 and .12. Is there a list posted anywhere (the website has such little information). My guess is they are minor UI bugfixes with nothing changed in the playback engine. If that's the case, how can a bugfix in the interface affect sound quality? If there are engine changes, then Damien should look into their impact.

 

Baffled.

-mike

[Panelhead]

Mike,

You have to try it. I can toggle back and forth between iTunes interaction and no interaction, takes seconds.

The difference is large. I never tried with A+ because it was too much work to build playlists.

Plus I use Memory Playback also and do not see even today how using iTunes for library management can affect the sound quality. The sound quality improvement from A+ playlist mode and some windows playback software is real.

Try it. If you cannot hear the change there are other problems.

[tne]

Im pretty much the same as you two guys (Blake and Eltee00), I had been using the playlist mode myself for some time but found it annoying so in the end I went back to itunes integrated mode, the sound IS better in playlist mode but for the time being I can live with the itunes mode

 

For my listening habits and personal preferences, playlist mode works fine and is in no way annoying.

 

I just open Audirvana and also a finder window with my music library, and move the files i want to listen to into the Audirvana window and arrange the sequence as I desire. For me, and I realize this is not true for everyone, the album art and other metadata are not important. SQ rules. But in reality, I just do not see how the approach that I describe is problematic or more difficult. I understand that since this the way I have been doing this since Day One, that perhaps I have forgotten the potential benefits of the iTunes or other interfaces, and that once 2.0 is out, I will relish a new approach.

[edo]

I am having trouble playing multichannel with A+ The source shows 5.1 but it will only output stereo. What am I doing wrong?

[eltee00]

For my listening habits and personal preferences, playlist mode works fine and is in no way annoying.

 

I just open Audirvana and also a finder window with my music library, and move the files i want to listen to into the Audirvana window and arrange the sequence as I desire. For me, and I realize this is not true for everyone, the album art and other metadata are not important. SQ rules. But in reality, I just do not see how the approach that I describe is problematic or more difficult. I understand that since this the way I have been doing this since Day One, that perhaps I have forgotten the potential benefits of the iTunes or other interfaces, and that once 2.0 is out, I will relish a new approach.

 

For me because I use a headless mac mini, setting A+ to iTunes integrated and being able to control my music selection with my iPad with the iTunes Remote app is such a great experience. There is something very satisfying about the simple process of picking a song from a well designed interface on the iPad and having the song playing immediately. It gives me the feeling that I am here to enjoy the music only, and it separates me away from the tweaking and upgrading "audiophile" mode.

 

Whenever I am VNC'ing into my Mac Mini and interfacing with Audirvana and OSX directly, I feel like I am accessing too deep into my system, something that I should only be doing if I am doing tweaks. It mentally shifts me to a mode where I am focusing on the different qualities of the sounds coming out of my speakers rather than just listening to music. So while playlist mode provide me with better sound quality, I find myself more disconnected with the actual music compared just choosing music directly from my iPad Remote app.

 

So for me, while convenience is a benefit of iTunes integrated mode, the overall listening experience that it brings is a much bigger advantage for me.

[Mike Pinkerton]

Try it. If you cannot hear the change there are other problems.

 

Hrm, I tried switching back and forth many times with Haydn's String Quartet in D, Op 76 in 24/192 and couldn't tell any difference. Any tips on what I should listen for specifically?

 

(Setup: A+ 1.5.12, iTunes 11.3, DragonFly DAC, Fiio MontBlanc amp, Sennheiser HD600s)

 

-mike

[Panelhead]

I am not doing this with A+, but the results are the same. The effect I hear is better clarity. Also images are much better defined. Using iTunes interaction seems to homogenize the sound stage. Plus add a level of grunge to playback.

Maybe it is 1.5.12, maybe the way is is implemented.

I heard other comment that getting away from iTunes interaction was huge. Never really believed it. The windows camp, and A+ and playlist mode.

But in my system the difference is clearly audible. With PM 2.02 Less is More it is a button to click. It is very easy and quick. I can close my eyes and tell if LIM is active or not.

Not sure how or why. CPU is single digit.

[BobP63]

I've long preferred 1.5.10 over 1.5.12; however my favorite version is still 1.5.7

 

The soundstage of 1.5.7 is so much more expansive than any other version of A+, "by comparison" versions after 1.5.7 are rather flat and lifeless. If you still have a copy of 1.5.7 give it a try and see for yourself, I have both 1.5.10 and 1.5.7 installed so it's very easy to compare.

 

My number one wish for 2.0 is to bring back the expansive soundstage of 1.5.7 along with the new library management.

[odelay]

Thanks for the heads up Bob :-)

 

Just did a quick and dirty A/B - 1.5.7 V 1.5.10.

I preferred Ten. The resolution and soundstage was better.

 

Perhaps this was in part due to the upsampling settings I'm using? I've just changed my settings (to - 27, 1,300,000, 1.02, 1).

 

Bob - if you're using Izotope, what settings are you using?

 

I'm curious to hear which version other folk prefer. It's not unusual for me to be in the minority :-)

[BobP63]

Hi odelay,

I'm using A+'s custom Izotope settings upsampling only red book and 48 kHz by 2x. So for the most part no upsampling is taking place as the vast majority of my library has a native resolution above 48 kHz, I'm also using a true NOS DAC. However even when playing a file that's upsampled by A+ I still find 1.5.7 to have a much more three dimensional soundstage.

 

In the end this may prove to be purely system dependent but it's clearly the case in my system. While 1.5.10 may be slightly more resolving, 1.5.7's soundstage tips the balance for me. YMMV :-)