Jump to content
IGNORED

Audirvana Studio


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

What you hear isn't for me to disagree with, but just thought I'd mention there is no 'bit-perfect' player I know of, unless you mean something with what most people would consider unacceptably high levels of intermodulation distortion.  Everything else either does oversampling and/or delta-sigma modulation itself or optionally leaves them to be done by your DAC.  Different algorithms are used for these steps in the different players that offer them.  Audibility of these differences is debated, but they are measurable and measurements have been posted here at AS.

 

The software players do not modulate anything -- they send bits downstream.  If an algorithm is applied by the player to alter the bits, then it is no longer bit-perfect.  In that case, you are thus betting that some algorithm in a software player (e.g. HQPlayer) can make an audible improvement over what is done in the DAC.  Seems to me that whether there will be any audible improvement depends very much on the DAC (or other downstream hardware).  In any case, I do have HQPlayer (version 3) and did not notice an audible improvement (with my equipment). 

 

 

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

The software players do not modulate anything -- they send bits downstream.  If an algorithm is applied by the player to alter the bits, then it is no longer bit-perfect.  In that case, you are thus betting that some algorithm in a software player (e.g. HQPlayer) can make an audible improvement over what is done in the DAC.  Seems to me that whether there will be any audible improvement depends very much on the DAC (or other downstream hardware).  In any case, I do have HQPlayer (version 3) and did not notice an audible improvement (with my equipment). 

 

 

 

"Sigma-delta modulation," which is used to convert the file to DSD or other low word length format, is available in Audirvana, HQPlayer, and perhaps other software players. If not done there, it's done in the DAC chip (with the exception of a handful of DACs).

 

Oversampling is done in software players or the DAC chip. If that's not audible to you, the same is true of the built-in software players in Windows and the Mac, so really no reason for a 'bit-perfect' player.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

I listen to everything upsampled to DSD 128.

I have Lampizator Euforia, McIntosh D 150, Mytek DSD/192 Dacs.

HQ has many more Filter choices than AV+, sounds more open and natural, AV is a little boxy, closed in.

And HQ upsamples DSD without PCM Conversion, doesn't have the broken Direct Mode.

The Developer of HQ likes the Software to do conversions, not DAC.

I have experience Recording in Hi Rate PCM, and DSD 64.

I prefer DSD by a long shot.

I Don't care about Library Management or Streaming.

I DO wish the Hack developed by Run Home Slow could be built into the Software somehow.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

 

 

Try Roon.....you'll never look back!!   Audirvana could not carry Roon's jock strap!!!

Well, tried roon and it did deliver almost the same sound quality for a higher price! There wasn't any possible choice.

Mac Mini server running Audirvana+

SOtM SMS-200 neo ultra w/ external clock output linked to a tX-USBhubEX 
SOtM SPS-500 powering both streamer and USB reclocker with Ghent Audio Y DC cable

Wyred4Sound DAC2DSDse w/femto clock

Audia flight FL TWO

B&W CM10S2

Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I will say this after using Audirvana Studio for a little bit and poking around the app, those of you writing it off without even seeing/trying it, may want to reconsider. This is a vastly different app and has features that no other app at any price offers. 

 

I get a free trial, so I'll check it out for curiosity sake.  As an aside, when Adobe went with subscriptions, that motivated me to acquire a perpetual license with Capture One (at a reasonable discount).  Now, I'm so glad I did.  Not only is it better than Lightroom, it's cheaper for me over the long run.  And I can still use my old copy of Photoshop CS6 for the rare occasions I need it.  Similarly, if I ever have to pay for Office 365, I'll ditch it for Libre Office. For me, it's not so much whether a software subscription in itself is "worth" it, rather it's about how best to spread around my limited dollars.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I believe bit perfect players are the best option for certain DACs like the Berkeley Audio design Alpha series. No DSD support or USB support. limited to 192. 

 

Unless of course you think you can hear an audible difference between your favored player upsampling to 192 and the chip in the Berkeley doing it, in favor of the player, and (1) the player and the Berkeley supported 192 resolution at the relevant input, or (2) you had a digital/digital converter like the one available for the Berkeley.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Unless of course you think you can hear an audible difference between your favored player upsampling to 192 and the chip in the Berkeley doing it, in favor of the player, and (1) the player and the Berkeley supported 192 resolution at the relevant input, or (2) you had a digital/digital converter like the one available for the Berkeley.

 

The Berkeley internally upsamples to I believe either 8fs or 16fs. There's no way to get around that. I think using one filter on the outside and a different filter on the inside is a bridge too far for me :~)

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The Berkeley internally upsamples to I believe either 8fs or 16fs. There's no way to get around that. I think using one filter on the outside and a different filter on the inside is a bridge too far for me :~)

Chris, Try poly-sinc hb before the Berkeley. I have an old ML390S that can only take 48/24 max in my BR system. I use the hb filter in front of it to raise or lower everything from Roon to 48/24 and it sounds great. All the other filters messed up the sound because the 390S takes everything to 8fs internally and it of course uses its own filter to do that. Fun experiment.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jud said:

My larger point, though, was that if you do not hear differences between the filtering algorithms of different player software choices, there's no sonic reason to use a software player other than the one that comes with the operating system.

 

I disagree.  There's the presentation, search abilities, library handling, integration with streaming resources, ability to use different sound drivers in exclusive mode, etc. to consider.  As well, Windows Media Player (Windows) and iTunes were absolutely horrible.

 

 

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, fheller said:

think we don't value audio software appropriately.

We spend lots of $ on hardware, but we hesitate to buy software which might cost lets say 100$ a year or a bit more.

You are damn right. I must say I do not like the subscription model (although I understand the reason why), and I do not know the extra's the new software offers are useful for me (I do not stream, not interested in internet-radio), but I like Audirvana (sq, easy to use, very good UI). 

 

And $ 70 a year... at the moment I am looking at  six headphones (number seven is in use), our speakers, not exactly budget-friendly, are powered by a Mac tube amp.. what are we talking about?

 

I do not know I will stick with Audirvana or not, but I will give it a try.

 

Besides that, I usually buy the upgrades for the software I use (Tag Editor, JRiver, DBPoweramp), so I it will not make that much difference.

 

Bottomline: if you want decent software, pay the developer (paying peanuts = hiring a monkey).

 

Happy listening 😎

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I disagree.  There's the presentation, search abilities, library handling, integration with streaming resources, ability to use different sound drivers in exclusive mode, etc. to consider.  As well, Windows Media Player (Windows) and iTunes were absolutely horrible.

 

 

 

"...*sonic* reason...."

 

Edit: You know Windows has WASAPI exclusive mode, right?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Hi

first time of posting here, after looking in on here from time to time over the years.

I’ve been using Audirvana for somewhere between 8-10 years, can’t quite work out exactly how long. I first read about it here (well, computeraudiophile), and have loved it from the very first moment. Using Audirvana for the first time was one of those musical epiphanies: the immediate and total improvement in sound compared to iTunes that I was using at the time. It’s worked for me ever since, so I was curious about Studio, the next step in the system’s evolution.

I watched the video of the presentation and was hugely disappointed, not so much by the subscription issue, but by the way it was handled. I’ve had to present product launches and pivots at the company I work for, and the team at Audirvana (and any advisors they have) should have known that such a move (to subs) would not be universally popular, and worked to assuage people’s doubts.

Further, to spend an hour introducing the product without a proper demo, or any in-depth discussion of new features and improvements over previous versions baffles me. I suppose they were preaching, largely, to the converted, and perhaps figured not much needed to be explained. But wow, what a mistake. It would have been easier - perhaps more persuasive - to “sell” the price increase and move to a subs model off the back of a “look at all the cool changes we’ve made to the system for you, but we need to recoup the investment, and improve/increase the support we give” message. Here’s hoping their programming is a lot better than their pitch skills.

 

I’m on the fence about upgrading. I don’t stream - yet - just play local files downloaded from Qobuz and my ripped CDs. I’ll give it a go, probably alongside trying out some streaming services, and see how it works for me. I’m not that concerned by software subscriptions, at least not compared to the notion of not owning copies of the music I listen to, but a move from v3 to v4 needs to be accompanied by a fair bit more than a price change.


Sorry for the overly long first post, but thank you for the original intro to Audirvana!

Link to comment

AAA,

 

We would welcome you at Roon.   The Roon community there is wonderful to learn from.   You can try Roon for Free.  Give it a whirl and see what you think.

 

I know when I used Audirvana, it was a glorified version of iTunes just like Pure Music was.....not worth the price of admission!  Roon is so much more.    You can play Qobuz versions without downloading them just to see if you like the music.

 

Of course if you find you like what Roon can provide and do for your musical enjoyment, they have a Lifetime membership.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...