Audirvana 2.3 with Qobuz Integration

[pl_svn]

Izotope settings (upsampling) are extremely DAC dependant (unless you're using a true NOS one)

even more as at 96 and 192kHz upsampling you are most likely not bypassing your DAC's own filter

[Rezseeker]

Izotope settings (upsampling) are extremely DAC dependant (unless you're using a true NOS one)

even more as at 96 and 192kHz upsampling you are most likely not bypassing your DAC's own filter

 

True! I realized the extent of that in the months scouring the izotope src thread:, but one person's settings ended up guiding me to an amazing ball park of my own (though it cost me in the aforementioned gear)

It's just there were no reference points in the discussion about 2.3.3 vs 2.3.2

For all I knew some folks could be in iTunes integrated mode (doubt it - just an example).

[Kugel]

I think if the option is not checked oversampling values ​​are ignored Izotope right?

 

I in my Ayre QB9 DSD ( use version 2.2.4 , which is what I like at the moment) do not use upsampling .

 

Damien is doing a great job, but I think the remote application is several steps backward

[Rezseeker]

I believe forced software upsampling is ignored if set to none. Agreed, the remote app is and should be his focus.

Just wish I didn't lose searching of manual playlists in 2.3.2.

 

I think if the option is not checked oversampling values ​​are ignored Izotope right?

 

I in my Ayre QB9 DSD ( use version 2.2.4 , which is what I like at the moment) do not use upsampling .

 

Damien is doing a great job, but I think the remote application is several steps backward

[pl_svn]

Agreed, the remote app is and should be his focus.

 

I'm completing 2.3.3 today or tomorrow, and then A+ Remote 1.1 update

 

[SavantGarde]

Maybe I'm missing something, but when playing a track it shows the info at top and the additional track info at the side. When it plays the next song on the list the info at top changes to the new song, but the info at the side stays the same and doesn't change to the currently playing track.

 

It may just be me, but I would prefer if both track info at top & at the side was shown for the currently playing song.

 

The "info at the side" is the metadata pane. It shows the metadata of the currently selected album, track or tracks. What you seem to suggest would make metadata browsing very cumbersome, as one would be forced to actually listen to a track in order to view its metadata. A better solution would be to introduce an option to make Audirvana automatically select the currently playing track every time a new track starts to play.

[orgel]

The "info at the side" is the metadata pane. It shows the metadata of the currently selected album, track or tracks. What you seem to suggest would make metadata browsing very cumbersome, as one would be forced to actually listen to a track in order to view its metadata. A better solution would be to introduce an option to make Audirvana automatically select the currently playing track every time a new track starts to play.

 

Or you could just close the metadata pane.

 

--David

[Celts88]

The "info at the side" is the metadata pane. It shows the metadata of the currently selected album, track or tracks. What you seem to suggest would make metadata browsing very cumbersome, as one would be forced to actually listen to a track in order to view its metadata. A better solution would be to introduce an option to make Audirvana automatically select the currently playing track every time a new track starts to play.

 

Actually, that solution would work best for me, auto select info for currently playing track.

 

Can you do that as an optional check box in a future update Damien.

 

Or you could just close the metadata pane.

 

--David

 

May not suit others, but I like seeing all the metadata for the track I'm playing

[Lee Henley]

I had a friend round last night and we both concurred that the version 2.3.3 is the best version to date. When I initially down loaded the software I wasn't sure but there is a clear difference with the latest release that being there is less digital grain and a far better transparent sound, for me this version is the best to date.

 

Lee

[fourstrings1891]

In version 2.3.3 I've found the playback to sometime stuck on the last seconds of the track, sometimes with a loud noise.

[jackfromspace]

Hello,

is it possible to have an Album view in the qobuz playlist area, and not only a tracks list? (I mean the playlists you have made in qobuz desktop). All the albums are stuck in a small square on the top left corner of the window.

Thank you

[skatbelt]

I had a friend round last night and we both concurred that the version 2.3.3 is the best version to date. When I initially down loaded the software I wasn't sure but there is a clear difference with the latest release that being there is less digital grain and a far better transparent sound, for me this version is the best to date.

 

Lee

 

+1

[watercourse]

2.3.3 does sound good. There is a sense of some leanness compared to 2.3.2, but after listening to more tracks, 2.3.3 handles sibilants better, especially on borderline recordings.

 

All of my comments and listening refers to SQ with no upsampling.

[skatbelt]

All of my comments and listening refers to SQ with no upsampling.

 

Same for me. My Chord Hugo seems to do a better job in upsampling. And I am still on Yosemite.

[fbczar]

I get a "Too many synchronized folders" when I attempt to add a new music file. What is the process necessary to correct the problem? Thanks

[Jude2012]

Tried 2.3.3. Excellent inference compared with 2.2. The sound is good but still doesn't match 2.2.9.6. Less presence, less emotion. Overall the tone seems to be brighter.

 

I hope 2.3.4 will focus on SQ, now that tge usability bugs are fixed (didn't see anything in the release note of 2.3.3 about SQ improvements).

 

Jude

[Rezseeker]

Tried both 2.3.3 and 2.3.2 again with upsampling switched off. Didn't like either. The sound was shut in and dull in my system.

With upsampling on, I still prefer 2.3.2 , but I've gone back to upsampling 44khz to 88khz instead of 44 to 96. Either through the last few months of software updates or other changes 96khz is too grainy.

It'll be interesting to see the sound signature Damien ultimately settles on, if he does.

[Krutsch]

It would really be great of A+ allowed the saving of presets for filters for upsampling. I would love to play around with the settings more, but it's time consuming enough to change between 2 or 3 groups of settings.

 

Just a thought...

[skatbelt]

Tried both 2.3.3 and 2.3.2 again with upsampling switched off. Didn't like either. The sound was shut in and dull in my system.

With upsampling on, I still prefer 2.3.2 , but I've gone back to upsampling 44khz to 88khz instead of 44 to 96. Either through the last few months of software updates or other changes 96khz is too grainy.

It'll be interesting to see the sound signature Damien ultimately settles on, if he does.

 

Looking at your system, it makes more sense that your USB cable is the weakest link in the chain. In the past I used a Kimber AG myself. I was a non-believer on cabling at the time. But upgrading to a higher end cable made a huge, huge difference. People are very positive on the relatively new Curious USB cable. Other top-cables are more expensive and supposedly out of proportion, given the DAC class you own.

 

Most of Damien's new release's do not mention any actions on change in sound quality. My assumption is that a change in sound quality between versions in an indirect result of more efficient, added or deleted coding and/or interactions with the operating system environment. For me 2.3.3 is the best sounding version to date.

[Rezseeker]

Thanks Skatbelt! That's exactly the kind of detailed, useful feedback I love these forums for. I thought maybe it was my DAC. Sitting tight on hardware upgrades for a little bit, but will definitely look into other usb cables.

Thanks again.

[Rezseeker]

Actually, I've found a solution to my "problem". I turned on max upsampling and that's solved it: 2.3.3 now sounds clearly better than 2.3.2 in my system. Thanks to this thread in the general forum: Great filtering: Does it matter and what does it sound like?

On a side note, I really have enjoyed the Kimber cable AG (blue). It took forever to burn in, but it's sounded "right" in my system since. I'm glad this latest fix for my system to get 2.3.3 sounded great was the upsampling software tweak.

[skatbelt]

Actually, I've found a solution to my "problem". I turned on max upsampling and that's solved it: 2.3.3 now sounds clearly better than 2.3.2 in my system. Thanks to this thread in the general forum: Great filtering: Does it matter and what does it sound like?

On a side note, I really have enjoyed the Kimber cable AG (blue). It took forever to burn in, but it's sounded "right" in my system since. I'm glad this latest fix for my system to get 2.3.3 sounded great was the upsampling software tweak.

 

Congrats. Still worth to test-drive some other USB-cables. My Kimber AG had over 2 years time to burn in...

 

Results of iZotope upsampling is very DAC depended I learned. For instance, I had very pleasing results with power of 2 oversampling and maximum sample rate upsampling (combined with specific variables) with a Berkeley Alpha USB / Lyngdorf 'powerDAC' combination but for a Chord Hugo any upsampling leads to lesser quality in comparison by Hugo's internal processing. My experience of course.

[Rezseeker]

A question: with upsampling set to Max Sample Rate, DSD64 upsamples to 176 (a specificsample rate my irDAC cannot handle) and the progress bar advances, but no music plays.

Is there a way to force DSD64 to 192 without setting everything to 192 (my Arcam irDAC's max) via the custom setting?

For some reason checking max sample rate sounds a bit better than setting 192 for everything in the custom dialog box.

I'm using simple decimation (it's the only way I can get dsd/dsf files to play with my dac).

[Rezseeker]

My dsd64 playback problem is inconsistent. I came home after a few hors out and a dsd64 song was able to wake up the dac and play though I had max sample rate set.

I stopped (not paused) and the same song didn't wake the dac and the play indicator advanced in silence. I skipped forward to the next song, a redbook aiff file, then back and the dsd played. Maybe a bug in A+.

The dsd shows as being conveted to 176khz - which as I said in my last post I thought my dac couldn't play (it plays 192 fine, but skips over 176 according to some things I'd read).

Seems I'm just being teased me with the possibility of consistent playback.

[RunHomeSlow]

All my songs from any sample rate i play them just play fine at any rate i upsampling them... to 176/192... if i want to go max with my DAC (see below) at 352/384, A+ will get hiccups at beginning of song or when it switches sample rate, but manage after 10 seconds to one minute approx my DAC stick with the sample rate given and plays well... but not always... annoying!!

 

i have the same problem with JRiver at 352/384, but JRiver can bitstream in DSD and output files in DSD or 2xDSD for my DAC with no problem ??? so now i switch... but i love Damien work for MAC only and small business, but... in the end... like Zappa said: Music is the best :-)