Audirvana Plus 3.5

[Jud]

On 3/15/2019 at 6:51 AM, RunHomeSlow said:

 

Till now the is only SoX filter in the beta6, no izotope, don’t know if it will be in after. For myself i don’t upsample, i keep it simple 😀

 

Your DAC does (upsample), but that is I suppose simpler than doing it in software and having to make choices about it.

[Jud]

On 3/8/2019 at 4:30 PM, RunHomeSlow said:

 

This, can be only answered by you i guess. I was pretty sick this week, might test more this weekend, but at first sight, for answering Damien, i thought the soundstage was more near me and more fuller ambiance... But was it suggestive?

I love the sound of my music with A+, it is not worse from 3.2.x for sure

 

 

Yes, I very much like the sound.

[Jud]

On 3/15/2019 at 4:28 AM, jorgitok said:

Any chance of including any advice on what converters and filters are recommended? I noted that I am not the only one who is lost in this area. One or two defaults would be appreciated. 

 

There are default filter settings if you choose to upsample.  What kind of speakers and DAC do you have?

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Are you using it with or without the Direct Mode hack?

 

Streaming, so no Direct Mode (Direct Mode is Damien's custom DAC driver for Mac, and where the two aren't directly connected, the driver isn't used).

[Jud]

1 hour ago, jorgitok said:

Imac with TidalMQA, connected to DAC of Oppo205, connected to Marantz8012 and speakers KefR5

 

My reading indicates the Oppo supports input rates up to DSD512.  If that's correct, I would try upsampling to DSD256 (maximum available with Apple equipment feeding the DAC), if the iMac can handle it.  If it can, try the B8, B7, or C modulator.  If it can't, upsample to the maximum PCM rate available (I believe 384kHz with the iMac).

 

For Sox settings, you can see whether adjusting pre-ringing up or down from the default sounds better.  I also personally like to adjust the filter length as short as possible, but you may find it doesn't make a particle of difference.

 

I'd suggest leaving the other settings at default.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, jorgitok said:

Jud, thanks so much for taking your time to research my issue. I followed your advice and seems to sound great. The OPPO205 DaC section has an "Up-sample DAC input" that I leave it on, I tried off but I do not think I can hear any difference.  Nevertheless I am wondering if the Audirvana is already upsampling to DSD256 and the Oppo is upsampling too the input coming from the Audirvana,  is this double upsampling too much or redundant??. Once again thanks

 

DACs don't upsample DSD, so if you send DSD256, the DAC won't touch it with any upsampling filters, just convert it to analog at the final analog filter stage.  (In some sense this is "upsampling," since analog has an infinite number of "samples."  But it's not what people mean when they talk about upsampling.)

 

Edit: There is also a filter to remove the ultrasonic DSD noise.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, DancingSea said:

 

I have a DirectStream Junior DAC which, to my understanding, upsamples everything to DSD 1024.  I asked Ted Smith this question, and maybe I misunderstood the answer, but to my knowledge he said that the DSJ (and DirectStream Senior) do what they do regardless of what is sent to them DSD or PCM.  I was asking in reference to HQPlayer.

 

Thanks. I should know better than to make blanket statements, because there is always an exception.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, jorgitok said:

The filter to remove the ultrasonic DSD noise is in Audirvana?

 

It's in the DAC.  Sorry for not making that clear.

 

Part of conversion to DSD is "noise shaping," which pushes noise higher in the ultrasonic band. The DAC then has a filter which removes this noise.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, jos said:

In my opinion some options in the Audirvana Plus/Preferences menu, should be more on top for easy (quick) acces, because some of us use them quite often. In my case for example the iTunes library synchronization option and ReplayGain are often used. How about others?

 

I never use either of those.  😆

 

Sorry jos, don't mean to suggest your request isn't worthy, just saying the most used options could be very different for different users.  But perhaps many others use the same options you do, so let's see.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, jos said:

Audirvana+ is not always playing the song I select, but another song in my library. Most times it goes well, but sometimes not. I used to play my songs randomly automatically, so not a real problem for me. I have had this problem before, so it still exist in the new version.

 

I don't know whether you're speaking of selecting the song on the computer or with the remote, but with the remote on an iPhone I do notice this occasionally (for example, select the first song on an album and the second starts playing).

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said:

Looks like album with separate songs and still have the cue sheet inside the folder ?

 

Don't know if you're referring to a different track playing than selected with the remote, but this happens with Qobuz. (I don't remember if it is on local tracks, too - @jos, what is the situation for you? Remote or using the computer also? Local tracks?)

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, matthias said:

BTW, the feedback on the Audirvana FB page regarding SoX sound quality seems to be much more positive than here.

 

When you train yourself listening to something for years, then something else that sounds different may sound wrong.  Just raising that as a possibility.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, rruffin said:

Anyone experimenting with the SOX setting in 3.5? Kinda feel lost without my old iZotope filters...

 

I have bandwidth at max (99.5%).  If you want something more like an apodizing filter, you can reduce the bandwidth.

 

I reduce the filter max length to minimum (100) to reduce ringing.  I have no idea if this setting is very effective in reducing ringing at all, and some people like long filters.

 

I have anti-aliasing at 100%, a complete reversal from settings I used years ago that had a very gentle cutoff and allowed some aliasing.  This seems to me to make for a quieter background, but that could easily be my imagination.

 

I have filter phase set to 100 (linear), because linear phase is what my speakers' imaging is built around.  If you don't have my speakers (Vandersteen), feel free to experiment.

 

So - that's what I have, but there's no assurance these are particularly good settings, especially in someone else's system.

 

[Jud]

I personally always have my pre-ringing set to 1.00 (linear phase) in either iZotope or SoX because I think this works better with Vandersteen speakers, but if you have other speakers then try and see what you like.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, DancingSea said:

Any comments on the 3.5 sound signature?  Any changes from previous versions?

 

The comments I've seen here are from people thinking it sounds better. I agree.  (First thing I noticed, actually.)

 

Edit: Though some people have said they miss iZotope, which Damien is bringing back for those with a 3.2 license.

[Jud]

46 minutes ago, DancingSea said:

 

Is it more smooth than previous versions?  That’s always been my struggle with A+, no matter how much I adjusted the settings, it leans a bit bright compared to Amarra or HQPlayer. 

 

In my system I hear that as a more open top end vs. HQP (I don't have Amarra), so to me it's not a defect. (Don't have measurements, so no way to be sure which is correct, or even if what we're hearing is real.) In my subjective listening that characteristic is still there.

 

If you listen and it's too bright you can change it by reducing SoX bandwidth so the filter cut happens at a lower frequency.  Damien has also suggested lowering the filter phase setting. You can see if one or both of those has the desired effect.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, DancingSea said:

but when I went to the Sox settings, I couldn’t quite figure out precisely what Jud and Damien were suggesting to set because the terms are a little different in the settings

 

As you'll see, I actually used the terms in the SoX settings: Bandwidth ("SoX filter bandwidth") is the first SoX setting; Phase ("SoX filter phase") is the last SoX setting.

 

The maximum bandwidth setting is 99.5%.  If you think things sound too bright, lower that slider or type in a lower number.

 

SoX filter phase max setting is 100 (the default is lower).  That's also known as "linear phase."  Damien has suggested that if things sound too bright or aggressive, you can try lowering that number (0 on that scale is also known as "minimum phase").

 

That's SoX.  The corresponding iZotope settings would be cutoff frequency (.99 Nyquist would be the same as 99% Nyquist in SoX) and pre-ringing (0 to 1.00 corresponding to 0 to 100 in SoX).

 

[Jud]

6 hours ago, odelay said:

But I may well be alone in wanting such a feature?

 

You're not alone in wanting a more capable remote app, and I believe that's on Damien's list. But desired features are many and developers are few 🙂, so my guess, while not pretending to speak for Damien, is that it will have to wait at least for fixing any immediate more irritating bugs people find with this new release.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Joerg D said:

Hello,
I have A + 3.2.16 and would like to try 3.5. Can I keep the old version without being overwritten? If in the 3.5 are still mistakes and I want to use the 3.2 again.
Is the 3.5 different in sound to the old version, if so where are the differences?

 

many Greetings
Jörg

 

Yes, you can keep the old one.

 

Most people, me too, think 3.5 sounds better. Others will have to give you particulars, I'm just happy and haven't bothered to analyze.

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, stewartg said:

Yes what did happen to LEEDH processing for A+ 3.5

Apart from a slightly vague reports of SQ improvements, not sure I’ve seen any explanation as to what’s causing the improvement I don’t I see the advantage as things stand.

For me SQ is paramount and I’m not too fussed about tinkering with library management and things like that

LEEDH would reportedly have given a big hike in SQ

 

That as far as I recall is software volume control, correct? I don't use Audirvana's volume control, so it doesn't make a difference to me.

 

If you do use software volume control, I have seen some skepticism from technically savvy people regarding whether LEEDH is the be-all and end-all, or simply a good quality software volume control.

 

But in any case I don't know the status of LEEDH with Audirvana.

[Jud]

@damien78, to briefly go off-topic: I know we are all shocked and saddened by the terrible fire at Notre Dame. The cathedral and the Tour Eiffel are the symbols of Paris around the world.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, jimdukey said:

Any guidance on the many DSD Modulators?

 

 

Won't make any claims regarding audible differences, but to some extent higher orders measure better than lower, and B measures better than A.  C is supposed to be identical to B7.

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

Thank you,

but a more extensive description from @mansr or @damien78 would be helpful.

 

Matt

 

@mansr has already provided extensive measurements. Considering where the noise levels are (with many of the modulators, -120dB or lower as I recall), I don't know if he would be offering descriptions of the sound.  If I have time, I will look for his forum posts with the measurements, unless someone beats me to it.

[Jud]

The measurements will tell you that very precisely, though as I mentioned, my recollection is that B measures better than A, higher order (larger number) modulators generally measure better than lower order, and C is the same as B7.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, matthias said:

 

You mean these?

 

 

Exactly.

 

Please also see the first set of graphs at DSD64, for an explanation of what you are looking at (note particularly the explanation of the behavior of some DACs, such as iFi and TEAC, with the B6-8 modulators; though I didn't hear noise with my iFi DAC, I do like the sound of my current DAC better): 

 

 

And for completeness, DSD128: