Audirvana Studio

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, Musicophile said:

Here's what somebody else found (from the Audirvana community forum):

 

"I ran a diff on the backup of my library against the copy Audirvana Studio was running against. This found it had, so far, updated just over 5,000 files (in about 20 hours). And on inspecting and of those changed files directly, and with a non-Audirvana metadata editors, clearly shows the addition of the MUSICBRAINZ_TRACKID tag."

 

I checked and Studio did not update any of my files.  Perhaps I already have certain filetag fields populated and Studio is writing them in for others? E.g. I already had this field populated:  MUSICBRAINZ_TRACKID tag.

 

Specific examples will help a lot.

 

EDIT:  i do have some miscellaneous tracks that did not have the MUSICBRAINZ_TRACKID tag previously populated.  Studio did indeed update these filetags.  Goodbye Studio (at least for now).  I will not tolerate any software modifying my music files without my permission.

 

[lucretius]

12 minutes ago, Jud said:

The result of the analysis is to append a MusicBrainz ID to the file so additional metadata MusicBrainz has can be shown when you look at the album - *without* overwriting any of your own metadata or other file information.

 

I can easily understand @Musicophile's reluctance to have additional information cluttering the carefully curated metadata for his 100k+ tracks, a good chunk of them classical.

 

For my own part, I would like to see whether this would be recognized as a difference by my backup program and result in new uploads of those files. I haven't tested yet. (If so, I wonder if there's a way to tell various backup apps to ignore these changes?)

 

It's a deal breaker for me. I populate the MusicBrainz ID field myself via Musicbrainz Picard and my careful selection, etc.   I will not tolerate any software modifying my music files without my permission.

[lucretius]

8 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

Is it possible that the tag imposes a sonic signature on the file as well?

 

Matt

No. The tag is just a reference to info in the Musicbrainz database.

[lucretius]

49 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I do appreciate the label of "Dubious HD Recording" given my Audirvana Studio. 

😀

 

To be fair some MQA tracks do produce "Confirmed HD Recording".

 

 

[lucretius]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I find myself making metadata changes (editing or adding) to popular music frequently, and as you say, classical is even more subject to problems.

 

While nothing is being overwritten by what AS is doing, wanting tracks to be displayed as you have taken considerable pains to have them displayed is perfectly understandable.

At least I can control (to a large extent) what Roon displays.

[lucretius]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

This doesn't overwrite any user metadata.

I know what you mean but in my view all metadata (and the space it's stored in) belongs to the "user".

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Meanwhile, on Audirvana's forums, a poster has advised that bulk selection and deletion of the MusicBrainz ID tag is possible with ID3 Tag Editor (at least - perhaps other metadata software will work also, I don't know).

That was me.  I used mp3tag!

[lucretius]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

Mp3tag, Picard, and foobar2000 can also remove the tags if this is to be believed: https://community.metabrainz.org/t/how-can-i-remove-all-musicbrainz-tags-from-a-set-of-files/63938/4

Lots of tag editors can remove the tag.  I can use Picard to remove the tag, but with mp3tag i can remove a large batch in one step. 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Sounds like you can do a bunch at once in Picard too, from the description on the linked page: 

 

"For future reference, you can totally do this in Picard:

• load files on the left side
• select all
• select unwanted tags in the bottom pane
• right click and remove tags
• save"

 

Actually I do know how to change a file tag across multiple files in Picard. It's just a million times more awkward than mp3tag due to their respective browsers.  

 

This is Picard:

 

This is mp3tag:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, Whya Duck said:

For now, I’m leaving the new metadata tag in the files already analyzed. But it bugs me to lose the file modification date. 
 

For macOS users, you can use the “touch” command to change a files modification date to match another files. 
 

touch -r fileA fileB

 

…changes file “fileB” to have the same modification date as file “fileA”. 
 

Because AS analyzer didn’t update all my album tracks, I could use their modification date to revert to. 
 

touch -r "`ls -t *.dsf | tail -n1`" *.dsf 

 

…updates the modification date for all my DSF files with the oldest modification date of any DSF file for that album. 
 

For those albums where no tracks were unaffected by AS analyzer, I used the modification date of the JPEG album cover file. 

For windows, there is a program called Attribute Changer (google it for further info).  I have used it on photos (these files were digitized from film negatives).  There is probably something better, I just don't know what it is.

 

[lucretius]

Only if you let it:

 

 

 

There are also some other check boxes not shown that affect tag writing behavior.

 

 

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Doesn’t the initial library scan change tags to IDv3?

 

 

No.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, LowOrbit said:

R8Brain was developed for pro studios, has always seemed to deliver high quality results and is a very mature product. I think incorporating this upsampling code was one of Damien's better decisions thus far in Studio.

 

 

 

The R8brain Pro version SRC is very good  However. the R8brain free version is about equal to SoX.  It's not clear which version of R8brain Damien has employed. (I would assume the latter, since the open source code is available for that.)

 

[lucretius]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

It would seem. I expected nothing much after looking at the comparison. Yet to me, subjectively, Studio with r8brain upsampling sounds better than 3.5 with SoX did. (Haven't done any A/B at all on my main system.  When I first listened to Studio with r8brain I was very happy with it and haven't bothered changing.  It was just "Damn, that sounds better than ever!", and I left it at that.)

Would you compare Studio with r8brain to Studio with SoX?

 

On another note:  Since you use HQPlayer, where does 3.5/Studio fit into your playback chain?

 

Thanks in advance.

[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!

[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.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Cornell77 said:

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.

Have you played actual DSD files with Kernel Streaming?  When I tried*, Studio gave me the error message:  "Unable to change to integer mode".  I tried with both  DoP 1.0 and DoP 1.1,  both of these worked with WASAPI.

 

*upsampling was deactivated. I was just trying to play DSD64 files.

 

Note: Getting DoP to run at DSD256 requires a DAC that can do 705.6k PCM, similarly getting DSD512 requires a DAC that can do 2 X 705.6k = 1,411.2k PCM (my DAC is limited to DSD128 in DoP mode and DSD256 using ASIO driver and native DSD.)

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Cornell77 said:

I just played Bill Evans; Live at Shelley's Manne-Hole from High Definition Tape Transfers at DSD256 using kernel streaming. It worked fine.  But - the AS software was just upgraded to rev 1.1.  I had not tried this test of an actual DSD file on the 1.0 release.

Thanks.  I just saw from the Studio forum that there is a 1.1 release.

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

delete

[lucretius]

21 minutes ago, bobbmd said:

@The Computer Audiophile @RunHomeSlow @Jud @damien78 just lost my A+3.5.52(or what ever the latest version was) It says "there is no valid license to continue execution of Audirvana"--I have had all versions of Audirvana since 2013! I don't even know where my license key is anymore. Anyone else suddenly have this problem and how do I get my A+3.5... back as I haven't made up my mind yet to go to STUDIO

i have submitted this to Audirvana Support/Community also

let me know if you have any suggestions or if anyone else suddenly has this problem thanks bobbmd

When purchasing Audirvana for Windows I got a pdf invoice sent to me  by email.  That invoice contained the activation key.  If you cannot find your activation key you're going to need to contact Damien.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, bobbmd said:

@LucretiaS @Jud @RunHomeSlow and @damien78 Audirvana support quickly gave me my license key# and then they personally reset my A+3.5... everything is back

thanks for all your help and suggestions especially @LucretiaS

they haven't responded yet as to why this happened and @jimdukey & @MemoryPlayer FYI there is almost always an answer to all things and Audirvana always answers quickly regardless of what others esp on their community page say--try to get a straight forward response like I did from ROON without being censored or being asked asinine questions about what your 'setup' is everytime there is a problem

again thanks all above for your help if i left anyone out my apologies

bobbmd

 

Glad it worked out for you.   For future reference, it's @lucretius, and not @LucretiaS.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, RunHomeSlow said:

3.5.46 for v3.5 and 1.2 for Studio are out...

Thank you @damien78for the fix to version 3.5.  Much appreciated!

[lucretius]

Annual subscription price in Canada is CAD $106.99, which is $83.64 USD (not $69.99 as it is for the US).  Studio is no bargain for Canadians.

[lucretius]

29 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are taxes added?

Not in Canada -- no taxes-- foreign vendor not required to collect Canadian Taxes; like US prices, Canadian prices are taxes excluded.  Maybe Audirvana mistakenly included the (French) VAT taxes in the Canadian price?