Audirvana Studio

[kerisabe]

2 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

Some do and find Studio less musical sounding.

 

Matt

@matthiasin contrary to their finding, I find it so much more musical than 3.5, it is way less analytical, timbre is just so much better, the music just blooms. Even upsampling now sounds so so good. Why don't u have a try and listen rather than hearing people's reactions? 

[Boleary3]

Though to my ears Studio with kernel streaming in W10 sounds significantly better than 3.5, I cannot believe Studio is sounding its best constantly analyzing the audio files, using about 15% of memory(total 32 gigs). Will it ever end?

[kerisabe]

@Boleary3theoretically yes, I had my doubts, but it does sound better on my older 2014 mac mini (non M1 - which Studio is actually optimized to run on)

[RunHomeSlow]

8 minutes ago, kerisabe said:

@RunHomeSlowbtw this is abit of off topic but I saw you are running 10.15.7 OS, and was wondering if you have any success deleting the OS "built-in" apps? I was using a leaned out El Capitan to run Audirvana 3.5 and just recently got another SD Card to be able to compare and separately install another OS to be able to run Studio which is the 10.15.7 (couldnt get High Sierra)

 

 

I don't really play anymore with system... forgot Direct Mode, since i couldn't install it past 10.15.5 i think... Apple released after major security updates to 10.15.7, 2 times i think... so now, i don't care, might try installing later a Big Sur on late 2012, but have other problems more important than that... bit perfect playing, no hack, Studio for only local files, no bugs. Backup up database everyday just in case :)

 i have requests but all play good and sound better for me... was already hearing nice music when beta testing... i was surprise 3 or 4 times that Cd plays more beautiful if i recall :)

[matthias]

9 minutes ago, kerisabe said:

Since I also use Studio strictly for streaming online in the mean time without trying to integrate my offline collection yet. I'm very surprised people kept talking about the bad things and NONE regarding the upgrade in SQ. 

 

This is a very valuable info. I am running so far 3.5 with High-Sierra and do streaming only, no local files.

 

Matt

[RunHomeSlow]

2 minutes ago, kerisabe said:

@Boleary3theoretically yes, I had my doubts, but it does sound better on my older 2014 mac mini (non M1 - which Studio is actually optimized to run on)

 

If there is something with bugs and less latittude is Mac M1 :)  Apple are pretty good at closing doors...

I'm pretty sure the sound is the same on M1 or Intel, or worse on M1 for the moment...

[kerisabe]

5 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said:

 

I don't really play anymore with system... forgot Direct Mode, since i couldn't install it past 10.15.5 i think... Apple released after major security updates to 10.15.7, 2 times i think... so now, i don't care, might try installing later a Big Sur on late 2012, but have other problems more important than that... bit perfect playing, no hack, Studio for only local files, no bugs. Backup up database everyday just in case :)

 i have requests but all play good and sound better for me... was already hearing nice music when beta testing... i was surprise 3 or 4 times that Cd plays more beautiful if i recall :)

 @RunHomeSlowyes it sounds more ANALOG now.. more than ever.. the timbre and density of the sound is just beautiful. When tweaking my digital system, I always reference the sound to vynil, and now it sounds the same or even better. Damien just brought the "soul" back into digital.

[jos]

Group albums by album artists doesn't seem to work in my case. Intially it works, but It can't remember the saved setting.

[fourstrings1891]

If I use the "Power of Two" (r8brain) or "Device maximum frequency" (both SoX and r8brain) upsampling settings, all 24/96 tracks become just loud, distorted noise. 16/44 upsamples fine. Anyone else?

 

Also, using SoX upsampling it cuts the last seconds of (some?) tracks. Just like Audirvana 3.5.

[RunHomeSlow]

5 minutes ago, jos said:

Group albums by album artists doesn't seem to work in my case. Intially it works, but It can't remember the saved setting.

 

you can try this:  the added date is when you have multiples albums same artist, same years...

 

 

[jos]

7 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said:

 

you can try this:

 

 

Sorry, doesn't work for me.

[lucretius]

11 hours ago, Christopher Wood said:

Surprise, surprise, Roon lifetime users with 500 or 700 dollars in the game don't like the new and improved 70 dollar a year Audirvana which is equal to 7 or 10 years of Roon not including HQPlayer. They were also complaining on the Roon Community Boards how terrible 1.8 was, but now they would never consider switching to Audirvana. Roon lifetime users are hilarious.

 

 

Why the attitude?  I am a Roon lifer.  I wish Damien and Audirvana all the best.  Competition will make both Roon and Audirvana better products (and also keep prices competitive), benefiting both Roon and Audirvana users.  It's great to have choices!

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Competition will make both Roon and Audirvana better, benefiting both Roon and Audirvana users.  It's great to have choices!

100% right. 
 

I believe we could use a little more competition in this area.

[jos]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

100% right. 
 

I believe we could use a little more competition in this area.

Perhaps when Pure Music will come to the table again, but I have my doubts about the long time they need already to develop a new version.

[matthias]

3 hours ago, kerisabe said:

both using upnp out

 

Did you try direct USB out from Mac into DAC as well?

Maybe Studio sounds better via upnp and 3.5 via USB?

Thanks

 

Matt

[jvlata]

No Radio and Podcasts menu!  They were there before…High Sierra, Macmini

 

 

[Martini]

RE: the it sounds better than v.3.5 comments. The description of 3.5 and of Studio is that it is bit perfect, if so, how/why did the sound change?? Unless one or both are altering the source data, then the sound should be the same. If they are altering the source data with an algorithm or built-in audio unit to "improve the sound" then they are not bit-perfect and stating so is dishonest.  So what is going on? Is the data being altered or is it just hopeful anticipation convincing one that the sound has improved?

[matthias]

6 minutes ago, Martini said:

RE: the it sounds better than v.3.5 comments. The description of 3.5 and of Studio is that it is bit perfect, if so, how/why did the sound change?? Unless one or both are altering the source data, then the sound should be the same. If they are altering the source data with an algorithm or built-in audio unit to "improve the sound" then they are not bit-perfect and stating so is dishonest.  So what is going on? Is the data being altered or is it just hopeful anticipation convincing one that the sound has improved?

 

This discussion based on if bit-perfect then no SQ differences is obsolete.

 

Matt

[ilkeresmer]

I am turning back to the 3.5, when everything is ready i will back to studio,  analyzing so slow, some album arts missing in the qobuz, still no remote  sorry

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Martini said:

RE: the it sounds better than v.3.5 comments. The description of 3.5 and of Studio is that it is bit perfect, if so, how/why did the sound change?? Unless one or both are altering the source data, then the sound should be the same. If they are altering the source data with an algorithm or built-in audio unit to "improve the sound" then they are not bit-perfect and stating so is dishonest.  So what is going on? Is the data being altered or is it just hopeful anticipation convincing one that the sound has improved?

 

Many users of Audirvana are fans of upsampling.  Also, I believe some of the comments are due to the excitement of a new release.  When 3.5 came out, I remember some users claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread (OK, they did not use those words).  Now with Studio I believe we are witnessing some of the same thing.

 

As an aside, one user has said the new logo looks like a toilet bowel and cover.

[greyscale]

Does Studio use DNLA? If so, its broken.😡

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, greyscale said:

Does Studio use DNLA? If so, its broken.😡

I've been using it for days without issues. 

[Cornell77]

DSD 256 kernel streaming success:

 

I was able to upsample to DSD256 using kernel streaming in Windows 10.  The receiving device is a Gustard U16 that is capable of DSD512 input. Using ASIO, I am able to upsample to DSD512.

 

There is a DOP selection available in the DAC input settings that appears after selecting kernel streaming.  (This DOP setting is not available in my system when ASIO is selected.)  Using kernel streaming: With DSD512 upsampling selected and DOP 1.1 chosen in the DAC input settings, the music is output at 16bit/44kHz.  However, if I drop back to DSD256 with DOP 1.1, kernel streaming works well.

 

Some  preliminary observations:

 

1. The left and right channels are reversed with DSD256 kernel streaming.

2. DSD512 with ASIO initially seems preferable to DSD256 kernel streaming.  But the optimal modulator may be different for these two choices., so this is a very preliminary finding.  Both sound very good.

3. I hope that the DSD512 kernel streaming limitation is a bug that can be fixed - along with the DSD256 channel reversal.

[greyscale]

Sorry Chris, A+ works fine with Marantz sr8012. Studio does play music from NAS. However, after Studio is closed, 8012 in not accessible via network. Have to perform a Network Reset on the 8012 in order to regain control.

A+ works fine same setup.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, matthias said:

 

Some do and find Studio less musical sounding.

 

Matt

 

As I've said before, opinions differ. 🙂 The only thing that really matters is what you think.