Audirvana Plus 3.5

[Anrad]

Hi RunHomeSlow, 

As per 'DoP_openStandard_1v1.pdf' (can be found on net) there is also name of Damien as contributor, not author.

I will try your suggestion - DSD over PCM 1.1.

Regards,

 

[mevdinc]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I'm thinking MacOS always uses DoP rather than "native" DSD, unless there is a specific MacOS driver for that particular DAC allowing native DSD. So in order to play DSD256 using the ordinary MacOS driver, you would need a DAC that allows 768kHz input.

+1
 

[mazuly]

32 minutes ago, mevdinc said:

+1
 

Yes I can do it on my Mac mini using Chord Mojo.

[Anrad]

Post #3 from barrows give good info

 

[Dandaman]

On 12/13/2019 at 4:17 AM, MemoryPlayer said:

 

I will try my settings with B (6th order) and let you know!

Btw, the sound quality of this DSD128 album is unbelievable:

https://www.highdeftapetransfers.com/products/duke-ellington-indigos

 

Ok, further listening has me now closer to your settings in that I'm liking 99.5/30000/99/70 using modulator C.  When I bring the Filter Phase up near 100 like you the sound becomes somewhat shrill & fatiguing.  Of course, I'm sure we have different equipment & listening spaces, so that has to figure into our results.

[damien78]

13 hours ago, Anrad said:

Hi RunHomeSlow, 

As per 'DoP_openStandard_1v1.pdf' (can be found on net) there is also name of Damien as contributor, not author.

I will try your suggestion - DSD over PCM 1.1.

Regards,

 

 

DoP 1.1is an iteration of DoP 1.0 designed for some DAC models (e.g. the Mytek Stereo 192 DSD DAC)  that overcome their input sample rate limit by using 2x the number of audio channels to transmit a DSD signal at 2x rate.

So for a normal stereo DAC, setting DoP 1.1 or DoP 1.0 makes no difference.

Some other DACs offer 705.6kHz rate in their USB input only for DSD256 playback, while PCM at this rate is not handled by these..

[routlaw]

Let me get this straight. So everyone here is suggesting that better performance is had, even with standard redbook cd files of 16/44.1 using DoP or DSD over PCM using SoX? Do I have this correct? 

 

My brief experiments with it have been terrible at best, so what am I missing? Taken a step further I don't even like up rezzing in PCM mode using a factor of two. My DAC is the Holo Spring Level 1 which is an R2R Ladder DAC and perhaps this makes all the difference.

 

Thanks so much.

[Anrad]

13 minutes ago, routlaw said:

Let me get this straight. So everyone here is suggesting that better performance is had, even with standard redbook cd files of 16/44.1 using DoP or DSD over PCM using SoX? Do I have this correct? 

 

My brief experiments with it have been terrible at best, so what am I missing? Taken a step further I don't even like up rezzing in PCM mode using a factor of two. My DAC is the Holo Spring Level 1 which is an R2R Ladder DAC and perhaps this makes all the difference.

 

Thanks so much.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/hi-rez-audio-distinguished-blind-testing

"The Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association defines the "CD format" as having sampling frequencies up to 48kHz and a bit depth of 16. Anything higher, in bit depth or sampling frequency, is considered high resolution."

I personally prefer dsd then pcm files (24 bit), even though my ears are not so young they feel the difference.

[RunHomeSlow]

I was playing with upsampling before... with izotope since i don’t know what those sliders really do i stopped playing with that. Bugs also and working much harder cpu iMac... now it’s back to basic, play what i have like it should 😀

[routlaw]

20 hours ago, Anrad said:

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/hi-rez-audio-distinguished-blind-testing

"The Japan Electronics and Information Technology Industries Association defines the "CD format" as having sampling frequencies up to 48kHz and a bit depth of 16. Anything higher, in bit depth or sampling frequency, is considered high resolution."

I personally prefer dsd then pcm files (24 bit), even though my ears are not so young they feel the difference.

Thanks just read this as well as all of the responders below the article. FWIW I didn't find the article to be very convincing though. Too obscure and limited in scope. Often what is NOT discussed or recognized in these debates are the differences in how different formats are mastered, let alone how a file or group of files from an album are reduced from 24/96 or whatever the case may be down to 16/44.1 for redbook CD. 

 

I have heard redbook cd's that sound phenomenal and some high res that is rather "meh". The point is there is so much more to the story than sample rates and bit depths IMHO.

[jimdukey]

Also different Dacs and playback chains.

That great CD will generally sound even better played as a File with AV or HQ.

I am very happy with File Playback, VS Disc.

Upsampling to DSD 128 is great, for me.

[bnbayer]

1 hour ago, routlaw said:

I have heard redbook cd's that sound phenomenal and some high res that is rather "meh". The point is there is so much more to the story than sample rates and bit depths IMHO.

 

Red Book CDs are ALWAYS 16-bit and 44mHz sampling rate. Full stop. Of course the original file can be analogue, or digital of any bit depth or rate.

 

All of this is talking about equipment, though, not the people who use the equipment: it's not a turn-it-on-and-go-for-a-beer-while-it-runs process. At least it shouldn't be... sometimes I wonder. And what files did you use? The LP master? or the original session tapes? Something in between? (Definitely back in the early 80s when record labels were desperate to get stuff transferred to CD there were a lot of shortcuts taken, and a lot of bad mastering done.)

 

You know, you could hand me the best violin Stradivarius ever made, and I'll drive you out of the house sawing away at Twinkle Twinkle Little Star... It's not just the equipment, it's the skill of the person using it, too.

 

[routlaw]

On 12/19/2019 at 12:41 PM, jimdukey said:

Also different Dacs and playback chains.

That great CD will generally sound even better played as a File with AV or HQ.

I am very happy with File Playback, VS Disc.

Upsampling to DSD 128 is great, for me.

So if I understand your comments correctly, using standard 16/44.1 files you are upsampling to DSD 128 for the best results?  SoX? My MacBook Pro struggles with DSD 256, ie cuts out and operates erratic but seems to play 128 ok though it runs out of RAM quickly this way. Regardless either of them still sound worse to me than playing them back with NOS of any sort.

 

Thanks

[jimdukey]

Macs don't ordinarily do DSD 256.

What Dac do you use?

I adjusted Sox to Linear Phase, pulled the slider over.

Are you sure all AV Settings are correct for Dsd upsampling?

What Disc Player do you have?

[RunHomeSlow]

1 hour ago, routlaw said:

So if I understand your comments correctly, using standard 16/44.1 files you are upsampling to DSD 128 for the best results?  SoX? My MacBook Pro struggles with DSD 256, ie cuts out and operates erratic but seems to play 128 ok though it runs out of RAM quickly this way. Regardless either of them still sound worse to me than playing them back with NOS of any sort.

 

Thanks

 

Try to put the memory at 1024 around (lower, but not lowest)... will cache shorter time then play, then cache, then play... less chance to skip or hiccups

[RunHomeSlow]

you can check also how your CPU is doing live in Activity Monitor on your Mac, CPU %, you can see the curve how it works with lower memory buffer, then like higher should be when not upsampling.

[Marten]

3.5.29 Update is available.

 

https://audirvana.com/delivery/audirvana3_5_releasenotes.html

[Chiler54]

Sounds Audirvana better with more CPU Power?

[Jud]

43 minutes ago, Chiler54 said:

Sounds Audirvana better with more CPU Power?

 

Curious if you are asking because you think you have experienced this or if you think you may want to try it. But anyway, I have two computers running Audirvana: a 2009 MacBook Pro with an old CPU, and a fairly new Windows desktop machine with an Intel i7 8700K I built last year.

 

Both sound great to me. The only difference is that the 2009 computer is much slower at upsampling files to DSD256 (the maximum on Mac for my DAC) than the newer machine is at upsampling to DSD512. So it is more convenient to use the newer computer with a much faster CPU, but I would not say that causes a difference in sound quality.

 

Both computers are in another room. I send music from them to a microRendu in my system.

 

If I haven't answered all your questions, please let me know.

[jos]

Damien, I have a small wish because it's almost Christmas: the little red pointer in the upper left corner of the screen is unused by Audirvana, but I wish it is active like in other Mac applicaties, in that way that Audirvana will disappear but is still active. I don't know if this is possible, but it will be nice to have. I known that the yellow pointer wil minimize the screen to the bar below, but that is not the same and I prefer the red pointer approach. How about others?

[jos]

1 hour ago, Chiler54 said:

Sounds Audirvana better with more CPU Power?

I think Jud is right. I would advise people, if they want to upsample, to look for a DAC with upsample qualities in the first place.

[Chiler54]

Ok my Chord dac doesn't need upsampling. was just about the sound in general.
then that should fit ...

[bobbmd]

@Jud and others: would it be worthwhile to try DSD even tho my Schiit Yggdrasil GS doesn't do DSD but the front panel does 'upsampling' at x1 x2 x4 and x8 and will go as high x4(never seen it go x8) if i play MQA from TIDAL and does same if it is HiRes from Qobuz and A+3.5// plus A+3.5 almost always says 24/192 in lower right corner. What about ROON trying DSP format someone in their support said it's same as 'Lossless' in signal path even though the star is a different color?

thanks bobbmd

[Jud]

If you try DSD into an Yggy you won't get any sound, so definitely not worthwhile. 🙂

[routlaw]

20 hours ago, jimdukey said:

Macs don't ordinarily do DSD 256.

What Dac do you use?

I adjusted Sox to Linear Phase, pulled the slider over.

Are you sure all AV Settings are correct for Dsd upsampling?

What Disc Player do you have?

Thats the first I have heard of Macs not ordinarily doing DSD 256.

My DAC is the Holo Spring Level 1, with Itona USB isolator into a SingXer SU-1 outputting I2S into the Spring DAC all being fed from my MacBook Pro.

I have been using Audirvana almost since its inception, but used Pure Music before that, and of course iTunes all the way back to the turn of the century on the first OS X release. IOW's while I'm not new to this by any means I fail to obtain better sound with upsampling. 

However I will admit there is such an bewildering array of settings within Sox most likely I have not implemented the best settings. I'm also willing to admit I don't enjoy trying an unlimited amount of configurations. At best its tedious.

I also have an Oppo 203, have used it with analog outs, as well as Coax out and HDMI out to another DAC. The outputs sound different but its very subjective to which is best if there is a winner.

Thanks