Audirvana Plus 3 (official thread)

[Dyson]

little issue: my network folder (NAS) remains offline

I disconnect the folder, launch A+: nothing happens

When I start playing a track, the folder is mounted and the track is played, but in the library management the folder remains offline

Any idea?

[Dyson]

I am an A+ version 2 user who exclusively uses drag-and-drop. What new goodies in version 3 will motivate me to pony up $40 for the upgrade?

the Sound Quality improvement, really! No risk you can try 15 days before buying.

[Dyson]

I agree, only thing taken from memory (2.6.6) is that now the last (lowest) octave seems a bit shy. Stage presentation is fenomenal and "release from speakers" is the best so far on my system. :-)

 

"Release from speakers" (term not familiar with) might be a good description of the sound improvement; I was thinking along the lines of a removal of a veil. The low end seems tighter and more accurate on my system. I'm still blown away by the degree of improvement.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

I do agree. The latest bottom end lost some body but it's better controlled overall.

[Dyson]

If you're listening to an MQA album on Tidal you'll see the text MQA on the top right of the screen where it shows the file type/bit depth, sampling frequency etc.

Is there a definition of the color on the side of the MQA logo?

[Dyson]

That sounds negative to me, because I rather do like to feel the bottom end when it is supposed to be there, and spent a lot of money on speakers capable of going low enough uncurtailed. It is a pity if apparent improvements in some respects are accompanied by deterioration elsewhere. Could be a deal breaker - some time I will have to try (only I will have to be certain I can revert if I don't like), but no hurry as MQA is of nominterest and I'm hoping Damien will fix the library issues soon.

 

It isn't negative. All the lower end is there, controlled. Many versions gave the feeling to have more low end extension, but in fact had something like "boomy" basses. One version: 2.6b16 (2.5.9.16) had very controlled low end (probably too controlled BTW). Version 2.6.6 gives the impression to have more bass but not as well mastered as 3.0. Not speaking of the other sound improvement of 3.0.

[Dyson]

A+ is unfolding MQA files to 88.2/96kHz, but is displaying (on the right) the max resolution of the file, meaning from 44.1kHz up to DXD (352.8kHz).

 

Without upsampling I get:

MQA 352.8kHz track plays at 88.2kHz

MQA 44.1kHz track plays at 88.2kHz

 

There are wonderful test tracks at 2L. Size performance of MQA is hard to believe: a 9:24 file in DXD is 760MB, the same with MQA 98MB !!!

[Dyson]

Unfolding is upsampling. Compressed information tells the renderer what resolution to upsample/unfold to, among other things.

 

Sorry Jud, I do not agree. If unfolding is what MQA allows/is doing then it is not equal to upsampling. MQA allows to rebuild the original sample rate from the content of the file (all the data is stored), there is no guessing/calculation of missing information.

If my description if wrong, then I haven't understood what MQA is and even worse I would not see the interest of it.

[Dyson]

With very very few exceptions, DACs upsample, so unless you are listening with a non-upsampling override setting (which will sound horrible due to aliasing and other artifacts), your expectation bias is what you are hearing. Having software do so instead (or in addition) simply gives you more control. If you don't like those options, no one is suggesting you have to use them, but telling other people that it is damaging to the music is kind of ill-informed, despite the fact that you "could [sic] care less."

 

iFi Audio DAC's have a BitPerfect setting where they do not upsample. It is even the best sounding setting!

[Dyson]

So does my DAC.

 

It might sound the "best" to you, but do you know what happens with the digital to analogue conversion when neither software nor hardware upsampling is used?

 

It needs a well designed analog filter.

 

Add-on: that's the main reason why up sampling was introduced: easier and cheaper filter

[Dyson]

all sigma-delta dac chips (Wolfson, Burr Brown & Co.) do upsample internally

there's been , in the past, a lot of misleading claims by DAC manufacturers about their "non upsampling" DACs

truth is they do not upsample *before* the DAC chip itself which then.. *does*

iFi Dac's is hybrid, only least significant part is reproduced with sigma-delta converter.

[Dyson]

Hi Dyson. This is not actually something subject to disagreement. If you look at MQA's patents or technical papers or any technical descriptions of it, you will find that "unfolding" and "upsampling" are the same thing. You will also find that whereas there is a method of upsampling ("closed form") that, though not commonly used, does not lose any information, the method used by MQA is not this method and does in fact lose information. MQA's method of compression, unlike FLAC or ALAC, is also lossy. So information is lost when the file is "folded down" to 16/44.1 or /48 or whatever, and it is lost again when the file is "unfolded." MQA does not claim otherwise; rather it claims that its methods are *audibly* lossless.

 

I have done some reverse engineering of the MQA decoder, and I can confirm that Jud is right. Only the first stage decoding restores any high-frequency content from the original. The rest is mere upsampling with a very poor filter.

Thanks both of you for clarifying. Should we conclude that all around MQA launch is very a well orchestrated campaign? And that in fact with regards to real hi-res streaming, it's a step backwards?

Glad that I finally know.