Jump to content
IGNORED

Audirvana Plus 3 (official thread)


Recommended Posts

I don't think this is true. We spend thousands of dollars on components and we also used to spend a lot on source material. Compared to this the price of Roon is very, very decent.

 

I that were true for the market as a whole for these players then A+ (and nearly all of the others), would be charging way more money.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
Obviously we have someone who is part of Roon's market, and someone who is not. :) But this is aside from A+ v3, which is what we're discussing....

 

I'm very much in Roon's market. Just observing its price, and to my ears comparable yet not superior audio quality, is not going to dominate our market anytime soon - which is good news for A+ and the others. I can afford Roon, just not compelled enough by what it does to pay.

 

As for library management, yes, Roon wins the blue ribbon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
This was a concern for me as well. Roon server acts as a background process on my dedicated Mac mini. Is does not even open a window or has some kind of interface. CPU usage is between 2 - 4% and memory usage approximately 1.5 times wat A+ needs. The more heavy duties like updating and backing up the DB are scheduled for sleeping hours. What I find amazing is that my own collection and all from Tidal co-exists transparently and that I can associate between artists, influencers, labels etc. just like for instance in Tidal's own UI.

 

That part is cool

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment

I have A+ 2.6.6 purchased last summer. Do I need to delete that version in order to fully hear 3.0? Or do I just download 3.0 and run it without regard to 2.6.6?

 

Thanks!

 

Upgrade is free for 2.x purchases since Dec 25th, 2016 CET

For other 2.x (or 1.x) owners upgrade is USD39 or €34 (+ VAT for Europeans)

 

I've further optimised the audio playback engine :D

 

 

You should make a backup in this case as v3 library has added columns for MQA authenticity information.

Link to comment

I downloaded 3.0 and gave a listen. It does sound very good. There are positive changes to the overall SQ. But for me, the unappealing high end remains, too shrill for me. I like Amarra 4's more smooth approach. Which is disappointing because of Amarra 4's well documented bugs that A+ seems to overcome.

Link to comment
I'd look at tweaking Audirvana's izotope settings to your taste, rather than chucking it. Note, the settings affect one another.

Also check if you have Direct Mode enabled and if you're in Mode 1 or 2.

The following may not be the settings you need, but it might make you hear a difference and give you a starting point for further changes

iZotope parameters:

Steepness 120

Filter max length 1,500,000

Cutoff freq 1.00

Anti-alisaing 200

pre-ringing 0.40

Thanks for this. I was listening to James Vincent McMorrow's "Get Low" via Tidal HiFi. In my system, the bass is quite distorted using A+ 3. I reverted back to the factory systems, same thing - unlistenable. The Tidal App, and Amarra for Tidal both have no distortion. Not crazy about either app, but there's no distortion/ clipping... A+ 3 may just not be right for my system. I don't want to have to fuss too much with the settings...

Link to comment
ok, just given this MQA thing a try

 

three tracks only Crosby, Nash & Young's "Suite Judy Blue Eyes", Duke Ellington's "Afro Bossa" and Madonna's "Lucky Star"

compared local files against Tidal- A+ MQA software unfolding to 24/96 (no MQA dac). local files are 16/44. only Duke Ellington's is 24/192 (so this one was totally unfair :P )

 

no way: local 16/44 tracks do sound much better

not a surprise since in my "wow sounding" playlist (local files only) 9 out of 10 are 16/44

bit/sample rate don't mean much ;)

 

as all the above are digital remasterings of old to "ancient" analogue materials, I then tried Kaleo's "Vor í Vaglaskógi"

no way once more: local 16/44 is better

 

then... Rhiannon Gidden's "Moonshiner's Daughter". 24/96 MQA vs local 24/96

no contest at all: local wins by far indeed!

MQA... bye-bye! :P

 

I use Tidal only for exploring new music. Once discovered, I get local files.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

After a long listening session comparing Amarra SQ+, HiFi and Amarra 4, I have concluded the following.  I though SQ+ might have a use for me playing my many old iTunes 256 AAC files.  With my ears attuned to lossless music, even the Audio Conditioner couldn't leave me feeling what a load of junk Apple has been selling us in terms of sound quality.  Couldn't bear it.

 

Yes, Amarra 4 library is yada yada yada.  That aside, I would like to offer my gratitude to Sonic Studios for creating a player that generates the highest sound quality I've ever heard, anywhere.  A4 is much better than previous incarnations, and to my ears, has no peer in this genre.  Wow, it was an outstanding listening session.

Link to comment
On 4/30/2017 at 0:54 AM, dieterjp said:

I really hope we can move on and discuss A+3 in this thread

 

My post about Amarra was put in this thread by accident.  It was intended for the Amarra thread.  Actually, not quite sure how it ended up here.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, I find the A+ library management system to be clearly superior to Amarra 4, though I'm not that fond of either's, much preferring iTunes.  Amarra 4 is quite stable, just has weird library bugs, and lacks the ability to do simple things like delete a track from the library, or even a playlist.  Instead have to delete all tracks to just delete one.  Playlist creation is somewhat useless in A4.  For shuffle, it doesn't play all the songs before repeating, quiet annoying.  It catalogs a number of CD's as "various artists" for no rational reason.  Its a great player sound wise with a subpar, yet survivable library management system.  I've had to create sweeping work arounds to achieve a measure of Zen.

 

A+ has none of the issues mentioned above.  As a test, I imported 3600 tracks into both players.  A+ took 1 minute, A4 took 8 minutes.  The A4 GUI is more pleasing to look at, they did a good job with that..

 

As for sound quality, there are so many variables, with the player being one in a long chain.  Our equipment is rarely the same, thus we're not comparing apples to apples.  Then there's a matter of personal taste.

 

For me - in my system, and to my sonic tastes - the Amarra 4 sound is much better than A+.  Its not close.

 

But I fully understand and respect that others may prefer A+.  It makes sense.  We're all different people, and that's ok.  I do wish Amarra 4 could achieve Damien's superior and more detailed oriented programming standards.  I'm certain Sonic Studio's woes have made a nice contribution to Damien's bank account.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...