Audirvana Plus 3 (official thread)

[Innocent Bystander]

Damien, I was rather hoping that with this major and chargeable release the problems with the library would have been fixed, most notably an ability to browse by file structure (people on your A+ forum have been calling it folder view). Could you please let us know when that will happen, as many people have been waiting a long time, and the fix of cutting and pasting from A browser into A+ is inefficient, impossible for non-computerphile partners, and makes the App pointless.

[Innocent Bystander]

"Release from speakers" is a term I invented today missing a better phrase

for when you no longer can say that sound is actually coming from the

speakers. I have a slight allergy for when it's the other way around.

Dynamics seems to have improved as well, makes it more fun to listen :-)

What I belive is missing a bit is what's below ~30hz, the part that makes

the floor and the couch you are sitting on to move.

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.

[Innocent Bystander]

Even though direct mode doesn't work on latest mac software, am I missing a lot as a result? I have never used A+ before you see.

 

I could tell the difference when I tried back in version 2.1 or so. I haven't updated to v3 so can't be sure now. It will of course depend on your system and how revealing it is, and also probably on what Mac model and how it is set up - and of course on your ears! i seem to recall there is a fix knocking around, but if you can't find it or it doesn't fix it, then you like what you currently hearing it may be better not to worry about it!

[Innocent Bystander]

My library works just fine by the way :-)

 

Maybe you're lucky enough to have perfect metadata. Some of us have less than perfect metadata, typically a mixture of little of no metadata (old ripped LPs) and at best inconsistent metadata, which is a major issue with classical recordings, where nominally the same thing can have genre assigned as symphony, orchestral or just classical, artist can be assigned as composer, orchestra, conductor or soloist, conductor's name can be surname first, first name first, initials first, and ebpven miss-spelt, etc etc. And quite asside from these problems, I have some things where for no apparent reason only not all the tracks appear in the listing. The only solution I have found is to use VNC to control my headless Mac Mini instead of Audirvana's app, using Finder to browse then copying and pasting into the A+ play queue. Easy, but relatively fiddly, makes the app redundant and so a waste of money - and not easy for a non-computer-savvy family member to do. I first raised with Damien 18 months ago, when he seemed to understand the problem, but no fix yet despite numerous requests from people on Audirvana's own forum. If the sound quality hadn't been so good I would have abandoned A+ long ago. I hang on in hope, though I've stopped recommending to others.

[Innocent Bystander]

it's not a matter of "being lucky": it's about working on your file's metadata

hope that A+ will magically fix missing/bad/poor/wrong metadata? :-0

good luck with that

To put it another way round if you prefer, some people may be lucky enough to have the time to work on their metadata, whether in a large 'catch-up' manner, or with every file added. If, like me, you were unaware of metadata when you ripped 100s of LPs, and then unaware that the metadata on CDs can be so inconsistent when you ripped 100s of them, ditto downloads, so you have many 100s of albums needing "working on", it is a huge task. And one that is totally unnecessary if the player will allow browsing by file structure, which is not exactly a difficult thing to include.

 

I didn't have a clue about the metadata issue until I changed my renderer to A+, and in some cases where I have tried fixing metadata, it hasn't always fixed the problem - e.g. albums where some tracks are simply not visible in A+ but others are in the same album, and metadata is quite consistent between them - even if the problem is something else, browsing by file structure gets around it.

 

I certainly don't expect A+ to magically fix the metadata, but what would be very simple would be to facilitate browsing by file structure rather than only by metadata, as do other players.

 

Damien, please listen!

[Innocent Bystander]

Suggest you buy a copy of YATE. Not too pricey but is very easy and fluid in making changes to metadata. I have a lifetime sub to ROON (the supposed metadata master) and Yate is very much of use.

A+ is far superior to ROON in maintaining classical metadata, IMO.

WDW

I've tried a number of metadata editors, though not Yate. Yate might be better than others, but it is still inevitably a time-consuming process. I am trying to keep on top of new albums added (though as I mentioned, even when metadata looks consistent A+ has glitches and sometimes can't see all files in an album). To try to go through my whole collection may have to wait till I retire - and then a soul-destroying tedium that is scarcely imy idea of fun. But it is so unnecessary when implementing a simple file-structure browse facility would be a great feature for Audirvana, serving everybody else out there with imperfect metadata.

[Innocent Bystander]

oh... ok, that's a whole different matter and I've been complaining about A+ "funny" metadata handling since v2.0

....

 

I was astonished the day I saw my friends, those using PCs, had to use filepaths to have their music "properly" handled by their players

 

....

nothing against A+ using filepaths too. but only as far as users can be in control of what and how those are taken into account: when in v 2.6 something of that was introduced... my library became a mess and I had to 1) wait for a fix, 2) start fresh *once more*

 

But for the millions used to filing anything, not just music, on PC, Macs, and physical media in office filing cabinets, archives, libraries etc the hierachical process of genre/artist/album (and any additional categories desired) is second nature, and in managing such a system on your own computer, NAS or whatever simply requires consistency when creating a folder for a new artist (e.g. surname first), and adding a new album whether just ripped or downloaded is simply a matter of going to the appropriate artist folder and saving it. For me it was never a matterr of filing music that way to be found properly by a player, but filing in a logical and methodical manner allowing easy file management for any future access, and I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a player to accommodate that, as indeed others do.

 

Incidentally, A+ 2.6 caused me no additional problems, because to me its library facility was already useless!!

[Innocent Bystander]

see? "genre" comes first among your filing criteria

most of what I listen to is so "borderline across different genres" that genre is, in my collection, the least relevant criterion

 

but once all that is in specific file tags... everyone can sort his library according to whatever he values the most (and re-arrange it with a single click any time he changes his mind)

Not quite sure what you mean by "see"?

 

In my collection genre is a category because if I don't have a specific piece of music I want to listen to the first thing I do is think to myself, am I in a mood to listen to classical or rock music now? And from that decision I want to browse by viewing what I have. If you were filing your music, I assume you simply wouldn't include a category of genre - and that is your choice - but would make no difference, as if browsing by file structure it would be by whatever categories you choose for yourself, nothing needs to be preset in Audirvana.

 

Genre in my filing system (and a beauty of filing in this way is that it is entirely up to the person whose collection it is) is currently simply classical, opera, rock, world music and miscellaneous. And at any time if i felt that something better would be useful I could decide to split one, and move part of its contents in just a couple of minutes.

 

The manufacturer-assigned metadata of ripped CDs or downloaded music doesn't necessarily fit with my perception of genre, and in particular classical is often very inconsistent: you can have different recordings of the same piece of music, for which the genre for one might be assigned orchestral, another symphonic, another classical, making the assigned genre useless, unlike how I file for myself.

 

For clarity, I am not arguing against metadata or Audirvana using metadata as a tool for browsing: I readily recognise that metadata can indeed be a very powerful tool (though ONLY if it is correct and consistent), and in an ideal world all music would have matadata attached, maybe assigned according to a universal classification system. But what I have been requesting from @damien78 is that he includes an additional facility for browsing by file structure. That is not a fundamentally difficult concept, would engage all the people who, like me, have historically accumulated collections with bad and missing metadata and have been requesting this on the A+ website for a long time, and indeed would aid when something inexplicable happens as has happened in Audirvana with files that have indeed had consistent metadata..

[Innocent Bystander]

Poor metadata translates in a poor and almost useless music library

Yes, it does, when a piece of software relies wholly on the metadata to find the music. (But not if the software allows searching by where a file is located, i.e. the filing structure, unless the files are stored in an unstructured random manner.) Sadly, particularly with classical music, though also others, so much commercial music has inconsistent or incomplete metadata, meaning that to rely solely on metadata risks music being lost or unavailable through the library unless every individual person spends time with every file checking all the metadata before filing.

 

Implementing a means of browsing by filing system at least would provide a means of coping with collections having any files with poor metadata, and would add value to the music player - and surely is neither a difficult thing to add, nor in any way detrimental to metadata browsing and searching where metadata is adequate.

[Innocent Bystander]

I thought unfolding was like unzipping since MQA is some kind of lossless compression, whereas up-sampling is very different,

 

Erm, MQA is not lossless.

[Innocent Bystander]

My thinking, based on what I have read and what I have heard, is this: (1) Where I own hi-res recordings that are the same mastering as the Tidal MQA, I prefer the recordings I own. (2) Where MQA has made better mastering available, regardless of whether I own a less well mastered RedBook or hi res version, I prefer the better mastered MQA version. So as pretty much always, I like the better mastering, regardless of resolution.

Hardly surprising, as MQA is a compromise, and isn't lossless even if they claim the effect is inaudible. To my mind the only potential value is when online streaming with a borderline internet connection, as if the connection is high enough speed then hi res streaming would be better (from somewhere making available of course). Personally I'd rather just download the hi res, when MQA contributes nothing. But of course it is good for Tidal, because it reduces their bandwidth for streaming hi res - and maybe otherwise they wouldn't do so.

[Innocent Bystander]

On 3/20/2017 at 11:25 PM, watercourse said:

 Bass, especially midbass, had better control and dynamics, but seemed to lose a bit of lowest extension. Upper bass textures were better resolved. Overall dynamics, micro and macro, are increased.
I found that on some albums the treble of cymbals and vocal sibilants were a touch forward and detracted from the positive SQ changes in v3.0.1. I decided to adjust steepness down a touch, and found a better balance for my system for addressing hot treble.

Regarding the lowest frequencies, I'm still not sure whether there is an issue here, because although the change is noticeable, it does not detract from enjoyment. 

 

I always thought v2 was pretty close to neutral response, and it is worrying if I was that wrong. It sounds from descriptions like this as if a calibration recording is needed, to set a neutral response, e.g in conjunction with a frequency monitor program and calibration mic., otherwise it is rather random setting by ear against a piece of music.

 

As for the bass, whether reduced extension at the bottom detracts from enjoyment no doubt depends on how much any individual likes to hear the very bottom uncurtailed...

[Innocent Bystander]

33 minutes ago, astrostar59 said:

Interesting. I too have noticed a bit more 3D space, maybe tad more air though that is very small if any. I am on non up sampling though, no filters, nothing but straight through. Are there many here playing straight a resident sample rate?

I don't upsample - I don't understand the point, as it can't create something non-existent.

[Innocent Bystander]

10 hours ago, bhobba said:

 

 

This is a big decision for me.   I will need to a new Mac.  If its coming will get a new Mac and Audirvana 3 straight away.   Already have a copy of Audirvana 1 but since then my Mac bit the dust.

 

 

If I was at that point now, and if it is to be dedicated to music, I'd be seriously considering Melco instead, which is not a lot more expensive, doesn't have the RF contamination that needs an isolator to prevent degradation of sound quality in susceptible DACs like Hugo, and avoids the very frustrating limitations of A+'s library. Otherwise a secondhand late 2012 Mac Mini, which I think was the last user-upgradeable one, though now starting to get a bit long in the tooth. 

[Innocent Bystander]

1 hour ago, 27Globes said:

Trying out Audirvana 3.0... but find Library Manager confusing.. trying figure out how to filter out library by genre. Looked over user manual... still don't get it.  Can someone layout the procedure... would appreciate.  Does not seem as accessible as it was when integrated with iTunes.  Thanks.

 

I never used A+'s iTunes integration, partly because @Damien78 claimed higher quality sound not using it, and partly because I wasn't impressed by iTunes previously on an iPhone. However, the library manager is A+'s weak point. A real pain if you have less than perfect and consistent metadata (and sometimes still does unexpected things when metadata is correct and consistent, such as doubled up tracks of alternate resolutions if you have more than one version of the same album in different resolutions, and some tracks simply not appearing when others do). It is worst with classical, with its variability in assignment of genre whether on CD or downloads, e.g. different recordings of the same piece of music variously being assigned 'symphony', 'orchestral' or simply 'classical' (likewise when it comes to assigning artist). There are quite a few people waiting in hope for Damien to implement a facility for browsing by file file/folder structure/location to solve these problems, including me!

[Innocent Bystander]

2 hours ago, astrostar59 said:

I disagree. A Mac Mini is £500 approx. And add the Uptone Audio MMK at £130 and a Linear PS at around £150 and you then have a very user friendly, updatable and compact solution. I get the music server pre-built ideas, but I much prefer to be able to tweak and update a computer.

Yes with secondhand late 2012 MM, the price can be much lower as I hinted (my own is 2012, bought secondhand, which I upgraded to 16GB plus 2x 1TB SSDs, and could easily upgrade the SSDs further if I wished). But if you're talking new MM, it is not readily tweakable or updateable on the hardware side, and costs £180 more than your figure for the 2.5GHz version, with ITB HDD and no option for larger HDD, plus of course the cost of A+, so a bit over £1K.  If you want more storage, an additional 3GB external thunderbolt drive to match the gross capacity of the Melco N1A (4TB) would take that closer to £1300, and quite a bit more if you wanted equivalence to the Melco with 2x2GB raid storage on the Mac bus. That is where I was coming from in my comment in terms of Melco not a lot more, and sufficiently close for a serious consideration of pros and cons of each.

 

Personally I don't want to keep tweaking, but want to find the best sound and don't mind tweaking a bit to get there. I am very happy with sound quality from Mac Mini and A+, but it is a real hassle to use because of the library limitations, and impossible for my non-techie better half to cope with, so she can't play any music when I'm not there, which is rather sad, so if my MM died I would seriously consider alternatives. But hopefully the library will be fixed and all will be wonderful - apart from Apple's annoying lockdowm of its hardware.

[Innocent Bystander]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I can also adjust a half-dozen or so filter parameters over a wide range to my personal taste with A+; how many filter settings are possible with your DAC?  How often is your DAC chip's firmware updated?  Damien has updated A+ several times in the past few weeks, and I can change filtering or sigma delta modulators in the next 5 minutes if I'd like.

 

Why would you want to do that? Surely the goal is to find the most accurate conversion of the encoded file of digitally recorded music into an analogue signal, and contantly tweaking suggests it not working. Or do you mean you're effectively using the process as DSP, in effect tone control, to adjust individual recordings to a sound that pleases you? The two are very different, though of course neither is wrong, as it is all about musical enjoyment.

 

in my view the DAC designers do their best, and at least with the upper echelon that means a lot of listening, while renderer designers do likewise, and I was under the impression that A+ is the result of listening not just theoretical, however perhaps I am wrong and it is just coincidence when any given version sounds right with the recommended settings?

[Innocent Bystander]

1 hour ago, watercourse said:

I don't change settings often, as I don't have that many DSD recordings, but I have enough DSD files to notice that one size does not fit all when it comes to filter settings. Top end energy is not the same IME between DSD and PCM: if you tend to listen to complete albums at a time, you might want to tweak settings based on media characteristics.

Also, you have mentioned "accuracy" a couple of times in posts now, and by that I assume you mean tonal accuracy. I neglected to respond earlier, but I also agree that A+ 2.6.6 is tonally accurate. However, compared to my reference Bel Canto PL1, computer playback still lacked the finesse/realism of more holographic soundstaging, denser images, and relaxed presentation compared to my reference. These factors are difficult to measure or quantify, and sometimes only apparent by A/B comparisons. 

A+ v3 is still a step back from my reference, but a lot closer than v2.6.6. The difference could be down to my computer source, power supply, or other potential factors that I have not fully explored as of now, and not necessarily the software. I may also not yet have hit upon the magic filter combo. But when I don't directly compare to my reference, I don't perceive deficiencies in the same way as I did with 2.6.6.

Interesting. 

Perhaps my perceptive is a bit different because my DAC does wonderful things, holographic soundstaging and remarkable clarity as fed with untweaked and un-upsampled A2.6.x, with a naturalness that makes me wary of change. I may  try v3 out of curiosity in due course, but I'm in no hurry, and in the meantime I.m hoping Damien will fix the library.

[Innocent Bystander]

I've been resolutely sticking with El Capitan to avoid any issues with A+, my Mac Mini having just 2 non-simultaneous functions, as a music store/renderer and as a movie server. Does updating beyond El Capitan have any real positive benefits?

[Innocent Bystander]

@damien78, to save me nagging frequently, could you please let us know whether you plan to add a facility for browsing and viewing by file structure/folders/directories, and if so some indication of an anticipated timescale, however approximate that might  be.

 

Many thanks!

IB

[Innocent Bystander]

Does that mean that, God forbid, anything happens to Damien, or he decides he's had enough of us naggin, or whatever, and his database disappears offline, anyone who has purchase v3 will cease to be able to use it after a couple of weeks?

 

Hmmm, there's me thinking it is a music playing solution for life (mine)

[Innocent Bystander]

Poor Damien, he must be beginning to wish he had never heard of MQA, let alone implemented it.

 

Yes, this version at the moment holds no interest for me at all, and will not until 1) major bugs are fixed, 2) license is immune from absnce of ability to regularly check home, and 3) the library is fixed to include browsing and sorting by folders. And given the MQA ongoing seemingly continuous problems I would personally refer 2.6 to be retained with library improved as a matter of urgency, then maybe re-release 3 as a v4, much like Microsoft rapidly had to replace the awful Win8.

[Innocent Bystander]

7 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Hm - works perfectly for me.  And exactly which "MQA ongoing seemingly continuous problems" are affecting you?

Sorry, that was typed in transit and the MQA in that phrase was spurious from an edit: Delete the 'MQA' when reading that. 

[Innocent Bystander]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

For those of you who mind an application or OS checking with a server:

 

- Do you use any computer for anything other than listening to music?

 

- What OS and (main) apps do you use?

 

 I am pretty sure you will find that a great many of your OSs and apps are doing this.

I use a Mac Mini normally dedicated to playing music from my home store - it sits there just like any other part of my hifi system - that minimises any possible interference with sound quality. The only exceptions when I am not playing music, occasionally for music making/recording, and very occasionally for video playing, and for audio diagnostics with REW. Most of the time it is not connected to the internet. If I download music, that is to another computer then transferred to the MM. 

 

Occasionally having to 'check in', say monthly, doesn't worry me, but as I mentioned in my first post on this aspect, what is a concern is what happens to my hifi system when Damien one day decides he's had enough of this lark, or our whinging, or something worse - I expect it to sit there, stable, working indefinitely. 

[Innocent Bystander]

I havent budged from 2.6 as at the moment V3 seems too buggy, going by everything on both this thread and the A+ site forum, and I have no interest whatsoever in using MPA, so until Damien has time to fix the library issues as well, adding browsing by folder/file structure I'm staying put. Though that is only until I find something better because of the library problems: sooner or later someone else will produce another renderer app achieving the same excellent sound qualit but with a good library facility that can work other ways than just having perfect metadata.