Audirvana Plus 3.5

[RunHomeSlow]

Little speaker icon on the bottom right of window... choose your dac for its prefs, then youll see DIrect Mode

[mkrzych]

2 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said:

Little speaker icon on the bottom right of window... choose your dac for its prefs, then youll see DIrect Mode

 

Really where is the indicator that Direct Mode is actually active?

[RunHomeSlow]

working now cant send pict..  you see your dac... click the arrow on the right and scroll down..  button there to select dirct mode then choose mode 1 or 2

[Dandaman]

I just wanted to say that I am very pleased with 3.5.  Once I tweaked the audio settings to 99.5/30000/99/67 and set upsampling to DSD256 using B(6th order) I had sound every bit as good and actually superior to the older version.  About the only quibble I have is that many times when I do a search & make a selection, the "<" back button does not take me back to the results of the search.  But I'm overall quite happy with 3.5.28 .

[RunHomeSlow]

9 hours ago, mkrzych said:

 

Really where is the indicator that Direct Mode is actually active?

 

 

[S.Magus]

12 hours ago, damien78 said:

Quote

This is quite surprising as it goes against the consensus on 3.5 SQ.... Maybe there was some specific fit between 3.2 and your equipment? Have you tried tweaking the SoX parameters?

Thanks for commenting Damian.

It's possible, as you suggest, that my particular set up finds 3.2 a better fit than the objectively superior 3.5. I don't upsample so SoX doesn't come into it. My DAC is NOS. I found the new version lighter in the bass region and a tad more refined in the HF. It's as if the whole audible spectrum is shifted upward a little, to the slight benefit of detail in the upper region but to the detriment of slam and body (in voices, cello, deep bass etc.) Ultimatelly, I found the presentation uninvolving and had to go back to 3.2 although I liked the looks and functionality of 3.5. 

But having read your technical comment on the issue, I tend to believe you, and I'm willing to try 3.5 again. I have recently found a way of making my system less noisy in the AC department, and that in turn may result in better synergy between 3.5 and the rest. With these things you just never know, do you? 

 

12 hours ago, damien78 said:

 

 

Quote

Regarding the UI, @S.Magus, could you elaborate on "the newer version is too buggy compared to the old one"?

 I was referring to Audirvana remote which for me is the primary means of operating A+.

The last time I tried to use it there were still two issues that remained out of order (other issues had been addressed in your latest update). One is the absence of scroll alphabet bar in Album view. The other one is remote crashing when the last song starts to play and you try to view the queue. You need to add a song to the queue first to avoid this thing happening. I had to weigh out in my mind the benefit of 'add group to queue' feature, which I need badly, against the frustration that comes with those two bugs, to decide whether to use the new remote or the old one. I chose the old one, which I find operationally perfect, except that it lacks the very useful 'add group to queue' feature. 

 

 

[mkrzych]

8 hours ago, RunHomeSlow said:

 

 

 

This is not indication that Direct Mode is active, it's just turned ON, but if works, different story IMHO.

[jos]

22 hours ago, Dandaman said:

I just wanted to say that I am very pleased with 3.5.  Once I tweaked the audio settings to 99.5/30000/99/67 and set upsampling to DSD256 using B(6th order) I had sound every bit as good and actually superior to the older version.  About the only quibble I have is that many times when I do a search & make a selection, the "<" back button does not take me back to the results of the search.  But I'm overall quite happy with 3.5.28 .

MeToo, quite happy with Audirvana 3.5 and the remote app. Wonderful software and support! Damien is always doing his best too satisfied everyone, even when they have outdated operating versions. And of course: it isn't perfect yet, but the future is bright!

 

[greyscale]

On 11/7/2019 at 2:11 PM, greyscale said:

Perhaps a small issue?. Running A+ ver 3.3.25 (3555) the Device section does not collapse when closed. This is a DNLA device, however, this did not occur in previous version. Running Cat 10.15.1 .

This has been fixed. Running ver. 3.5.28.

[RunHomeSlow]

20 hours ago, mkrzych said:

 

This is not indication that Direct Mode is active, it's just turned ON, but if works, different story IMHO.

So, have you found that this button is not doing what it shows ? 😀

 

Mine was showing Direct Mode On with Catalina... Mmmm, i suspect a hack 😀

[mkrzych]

So in general, should I always upsample using SoX in 3.5? if so, in which mode: power of 2, maximum of the DAC or what and why? Mine supports 24/192 pcm at max, having also 88.2 and 176.4kHz. 

[copy_of_a]

1 hour ago, mkrzych said:

So in general, should I always upsample using SoX in 3.5? if so, in which mode: power of 2, maximum of the DAC or what and why? Mine supports 24/192 pcm at max, having also 88.2 and 176.4kHz. 

With a 24 bit DAC I wouldn‘t upsample within Audirvana.

Upsampling increases the bit depth - to 32 bit in the case of SoX (64 bit in the case of iZotope) - but Damien decided to forego making dither available after SRC in V3.5. 

Actually a pretty shocking desgin decision on behalf of Damien... IMHO

 

[RunHomeSlow]

If you do and know what to do with those sliders, not my case go by power of 2. 😀

[mkrzych]

2 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

With a 24 bit DAC I wouldn‘t upsample within Audirvana.

Upsampling increases the bit depth - to 32 bit in the case of SoX (64 bit in the case of iZotope) - but Damien decided to forego making dither available after SRC in V3.5. 

Actually a pretty shocking desgin decision on behalf of Damien... IMHO

 

Yes, Rega DAC-R is 24bit DAC and I don't see any audible reasons to upsample instead of using each particular DAC resolution modes, but maybe I am wrong...

[Jud]

4 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

With a 24 bit DAC I wouldn‘t upsample within Audirvana.

Upsampling increases the bit depth - to 32 bit in the case of SoX (64 bit in the case of iZotope) - but Damien decided to forego making dither available after SRC in V3.5. 

Actually a pretty shocking desgin decision on behalf of Damien... IMHO

 

 

"Zero padding" is done because many DACs these days use internal 32-bit computations. I believe it makes exactly as much difference as writing 1 vs. 1.00000000.

[copy_of_a]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

"Zero padding" is done because many DACs these days use internal 32-bit computations. I believe it makes exactly as much difference as writing 1 vs. 1.00000000.

not sure in how far this is related to my post...?

I‘m only aware of zero padding in case of increasing the bit depth.

 

Anyway: If you use a 24 bit DAC you should feed it with a technically healthy 24 bit file... not with a higher bit depth file truncated down to 24 bit.

 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, copy_of_a said:

Anyway: If you use a 24 bit DAC you should feed it with a technically healthy 24 bit file... not with a higher bit depth file truncated down to 24 bit.

 

Is the 32-bit file obtained by zero padding, and the "truncation" simply to remove the zeroes?

 

And I'm wondering how much this matters.  Is the most significant bit we are affecting the 24th?

[jimdukey]

I only have 24 bit files, or DSD.

Where are there 32 bit files?

I never down sample, only up.

[copy_of_a]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Is the 32-bit file obtained by zero padding, and the "truncation" simply to remove the zeroes?

It‘s obtained by the processing. When you apply SRC the audio gets processed at a higher word length and therefore the resulting “file“ is essentially a 32 bit file (assumed you are using SoX - it would be 64bit for iZotope).

When you use a 24 bit DAC the last 8 bits get truncated.

We don‘t have to get too technical here but can simply state that Audirvana is the only audiophile player providing DSP (SRC, AU Plugins) that does not include dither at the end of the processing chain. All other playback softwares in this league do ... for good reasons.

 

[jimdukey]

SRC?

 

OK, nevermind, looked it up.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

It‘s obtained by the processing. When you apply SRC the audio gets processed at a higher word length and therefore the resulting “file“ is essentially a 32 bit file (assumed you are using SoX - it would be 64bit for iZotope).

When you use a 24 bit DAC the last 8 bits get truncated.

We don‘t have to get too technical here but can simply state that Audirvana is the only audiophile player providing DSP (SRC, AU Plugins) that does not include dither at the end of the processing chain. All other playback softwares in this league do ... for good reasons.

 

 

Is this 32-bit float, or integer?

[copy_of_a]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Is this 32-bit float, or integer?

SoX = 32 bit integer.

[Jud]

Have you tried listening to 24-bit dithered and 24-bit truncated to identify what, if any types of differences you might hear? (I am not at all trying to put you on the spot, I'm just curious.)

[copy_of_a]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

Have you tried listening to 24-bit dithered and 24-bit truncated to identify what, if any types of differences you might hear?

Haha... the million dollar question.

Well, mostly you won‘t hear truncation distortion down at that low level (24 bit).  However, sometimes you may hear it as a certain kind of nasty granularity. Totally depends on the material you are listening to.

 

There are endless debates on the internet whether or not dither to 24 bit (coming from higher bit depths) is required or not. Then again - based on the underlying principles of digital audio - dither should ALWAYS be applied when reducing word length. And it‘s totally beyond me why such a great piece of software like Audirvana simply refuses to support common sense of digital audio. Damn ... it‘s so super easy to implement and you could code dither optionally to be disabled for users who feel it‘s not required.

Above all I‘ve once payed for iZotope Mbit+ Dither in Audirvana but since 3.5 it‘s simply gone.

For me dither is about peace of mind - I know that low level noise down at 24 bit will NEVER be audible as noise but will ALWAYS be the correct way to perform bit depth reduction and safe me from unwanted listening experiences that may appear from time to time with respect to the music in question („nasty granularity“).

 

(I am not at all trying to put you on the spot, I'm just curious.)

I know! You are (at least to me seems to be) a very kind, helpful and constructive person! All good!

 

[Nico]

7 hours ago, copy_of_a said:

Then again - based on the underlying principles of digital audio - dither should ALWAYS be applied when reducing word length. And it‘s totally beyond me why such a great piece of software like Audirvana simply refuses to support common sense of digital audio.

Very interesting point and question. Did Damien explain somewhere why he doesn't offer a dither function?