Audirvana Studio

[The Computer Audiophile]

22 minutes ago, MemoryPlayer said:

Who can explain what Audirvana Audio Scan is saying in the attached pictures?

The original 24Bits/192kHz file is fine, but after upsample it to 32Bits/768kHz with PGGB the detected quality is the same as a 16Bits/44.1kHz CD? 

I posted the same in PGGB thread, because sounds as a bug...

Looks to me like Audirvana just needs to update its labels to show an error or something. It says that music higher than 192 is outside the capability of its algorithm, so it shouldn’t say CD quality, it should say it’s higher than 192 or ERROR. 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, MemoryPlayer said:

Who can explain what Audirvana Audio Scan is saying in the attached pictures?

The original 24Bits/192kHz file is fine, but after upsample it to 32Bits/768kHz with PGGB the detected quality is the same as a 16Bits/44.1kHz CD? 

I posted the same in PGGB thread, because sounds as a bug...

 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Looks to me like Audirvana just needs to update its labels to show an error or something. It says that music higher than 192 is outside the capability of its algorithm, so it shouldn’t say CD quality, it should say it’s higher than 192 or ERROR. 

The intent of the scan is to show you the *original* quality so you can tell whether you’ve been sold music as more expensive hi-res when it’s simply upsampled Redbook.

 

Looks to me as if the scan is doing its job.

 

Edit: Sorry, did not read closely enough. Is it possible the PGGB processing got rid of ultrasonics above 22.05kHz? I don’t know what might explain the dynamic range.

 

Yes, this could all simply be an error.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The intent of the scan is to show you the *original* quality so you can tell whether you’ve been sold music as more expensive hi-res when it’s simply upsampled Redbook.

 

Looks to me as if the scan is doing its job.

Ah! Nice. 

[MemoryPlayer]

18 hours ago, Jud said:

...Looks to me as if the scan is doing its job.

 

Yes, this could all simply be an error.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think so! DSD files also can't be scanned...

 

Would be this error fixed in the new release?

[stefano_mbp]

14 minutes ago, MemoryPlayer said:

Would be the error fixed in a new release?

You can ask here 

[bobbmd]

@The Computer Audiophile and others 

 I hope this is not a repeat inquiry 

Does anyone know if it is safe to upgrade to Mac OS Sonoma in regards to using Audirvana Studio and for that matter using ROON or the desk apps for TIDAL/Qobuz?

should I ask about this in regard to ROON and TIDAL and Qobuz elsewhere

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, bobbmd said:

@The Computer Audiophile and others 

 I hope this is not a repeat inquiry 

Does anyone know if it is safe to upgrade to Mac OS Sonoma in regards to using Audirvana Studio and for that matter using ROON or the desk apps for TIDAL/Qobuz?

should I ask about this in regard to ROON and TIDAL and Qobuz elsewhere

100% safe in my testing. 

[PML]

With Audirvana I use for some month the convolution from :

https://www.homeaudiofidelity.com/

especially xtalk wich is amazing

with this convolution plugin :

https://www.waves.com/plugins/ir-l-convolution-reverb

This convolution with THIS plugin made a huge rise of SQ, far better than Dirac (I have a Dirac licence)

With that convolution has no bad effect at all, just huge good one !

[jos]

Using Audirvana Origin, but this would apply to Studio too, the integration with Apple Music is (almost) perfect now, I noticed. I can use both at the same time without any 'left-overs' in Origin. I think it's because of the last two updates. I still use Apple Music for administrational usage, because I am used to it and it's in my experience more easy to use than Audirvana.

[pl_svn]

11 minutes ago, jos said:

the integration with Apple Music is (almost) perfect now

 

... integration? 😲

[jos]

2 minutes ago, pl_svn said:

 

... integration? 😲

Sorry, you are right, it's not integration, but you know what I mean 🙂.

[One and a half]

Given up on studio, when arriving from work away about 2-3 weeks , play stalls and there's an update to install.

Lumin and DAC had to be restarted, takes half hour messing about to listen to anything.

Since Qobuz is installed, the search is mainly online, can't find, but have albums local to play, just too hard.

The recently added tab from Origin was missing, a feature greatly missed.

In all, too difficult, removed the subscription, and also canned Qobuz. It could never work out what I liked, and suggested Indie, classical, pop, which I only played for sampling of less than 10s and heard enough. The Qobuz SQ was not comparable to local files, lacked imaging and detail, quite a distance behind.

 

Now listening to Origin, very happy again.

[Jud]

Audirvana Studio and Origin for Linux (.deb and .rpm) and NAS (QNAP) are out in beta! 🙂

 

https://community.audirvana.com/t/beta-audirvana-for-linux-and-nas/40733

[creativepart]

I used Audirvana a long time ago and then switched to Roon for the past 5 years or so. I decided to give Studio a try this week.

 

First, I like the pricing. It's about 1/2 the cost of Roon. And you can do a full month with a full product for Free. So, trying it is totally risk free. Then if you want to subscribe you can go monthly, cancel any time, or pay a reduced cost for a full year. NICE!

 

Setup was initially confusing - but not difficult. I'd say the learning curve is less than one day of using the software. I use a SoTM SMS200 Ultra Neo network streamer and I couldn't easily find instructions for this. But with more dedicated looking I found enough info to make is work easily.

 

It sounds great. Does it sound better than Roon or Roon with HQ Player? I kind of think so, but I haven't used it long enough to be sure. I like to use a product for a week or so before going back to the other product I'm comparing with.

 

There are some features in Roon that I'm missing in Studio - but It could be just my inexperience with the GUI.

 

If you haven't given Audirvana Studio a test I think you owe it to yourself to give it a one month Free trial.

[Jud]

Audirvāna Studio for Linux was sounding good on a minimal install of Ubuntu Server (no desktop/GUI), and I like the Arch Linux based distro I’m using, so I decided to try a minimal install of base Arch Linux. It came in at a grand total of 247 installed packages (for comparison, 522 packages are installed with Ubuntu Server). Playing from the base Arch install, I feel my system has never sounded better. (As pretty much always, this is completely subjective on my part; not making any truth claims, it could all be my imagination.)

 

Below are the OSs on my office desktop. From left to right, Win 11; Xubuntu (a version of Ubuntu with XFCE desktop); ArcoLinux (Arch based distribution on which I installed XFCE desktop); Arch Linux minimal install; Ubuntu Server minimal install.