Audirvana Origin

[vintageaxeman]

4 hours ago, stefano_mbp said:

do you really think it would have been possible to offer an identical product but with a different payment method? ... that would have been madness from a marketing point of view

Yeah I agree, but that's not what I said. So you've misinterpreted my comments.

The fact is that the company advertise Origin as having some modifications which improve it, sonically and functionally, over version 3.5.

That would have been great for me, to have an upgrade which took Audirvana to the next level, and matched it better to the newer Mac Operating systems.

But removing the Qobuz connection just kills it dead for me....I am no longer interested in any upgrade which doesn't include a Qobuz connection. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 hours ago, Jud said:

Does Audirvana Direct Mode work with Ravenna?

 

12 hours ago, Mark Robinson said:

Nope, unfortunately Integer Mode is blocked out with the Merging Hapi (and likely Anubis as well), which is why I was hoping Audirvana could speak directly to the Ravenna network without needing CA.

I’m going to mess around with this a bit and talk to Merging to see what’s possible. 

[feelingears]

Despite frustrations, I'm going to pony up for Audirvana Studio over Origin even though I mainly play local lossless files. Thanks to all who've posted their experiences and support! Your posts, and my ears, finally convinced my brain to spend the money.

[MemoryPlayer]

On 5/2/2022 at 3:13 PM, Jud said:

... So that's the explanation - Damien has given a large number of users what they asked for.

He only forgot how much Audirvana 3.5.50 was!

 

With only black on lack appearance and the newest DSD upsampler the 3.5 would be fine.

I paid for US$ 40.00 for the 3.5 upgrade, why now I have to pay almost 3 times more?

Origin has a more open and transparent sound than 3.5.50 relaxed presentation, maybe r8brain effect, I'm trying it for more 3 weeks, but I will not spend so much for so little improvement!

 

I think Damien have to think more about 3.5.50 customer base if he want they migrate to Origin.

 

BTW, how many customer have 3.5.50, Origin and Studio?

 

 

P.S.: HQPlayer sounds much better than Origin and Studio!

[The Computer Audiophile]

7 minutes ago, MemoryPlayer said:

why now I have to pay almost 3 times more?

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s because software is expensive to write, maintain, and support. I’d also guess that the cost of peoples USB cables is far greater than the cost of this software. Which business should receive the complaints, the one that charges more but makes a product that requires zero ongoing support, or Audirvana?

[MemoryPlayer]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If I had to guess, I’d say it’s because software is expensive to write, maintain, and support. I’d also guess that the cost of peoples USB cables is far greater than the cost of this software. Which business should receive the complaints, the one that charges more but makes a product that requires zero ongoing support, or Audirvana?

 

Audirvana is only my library management, my only player is HQPlayer...

 

And I like to spend money with companies like Signalyst that its owner is available all the time, Damien now is so important for give us attention and I will not support this! 

[The Computer Audiophile]

29 minutes ago, MemoryPlayer said:

 

Audirvana is only my library management, my only player is HQPlayer...

 

And I like to spend money with companies like Signalyst that its owner is available all the time, Damien now is so important for give us attention and I will not support this! 

I’d say your expectations of a company owner available all the time are bound to lead to disappointment. 
 

Suggesting Damien is so important and that’s why he doesn’t give people the attention they seek, is preposterous. 

[MemoryPlayer]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

...Suggesting Damien is so important and that’s why he doesn’t give people the attention they seek, is preposterous. 

How many replies he gave to your questions last year, Chris? If none, that is preposterous!

 

I'm only a customer of an outdated version of Audirvana, but you is the guy!

 

BTW, I paid for US$5,000 for a NBS Black Power Cable, my USB cable costs 6 times the Origin full price, but I don't pay for US$100 for an Audirvana update.

 

DAC and software change every day, they have to be cheap, or at least non expensive! With speakers, amplifiers and critical cables, I can spend a lot of money and I am happy with them.

 

I worked 22 years for an american big TI company, I understand very well about costs and prices.

 

 

PS: Sorry for my poor English, I'm from Brasil with S, not Z, and portuguese is my language...

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, MemoryPlayer said:

How many replies he gave to your questions last year, Chris?

I'm only a customer of an outdated version of Audirvana, but you is the guy!

I met with him and his team in Munich. I understand the separation of duties going on there and I don’t expect him to reply. I often hear from Antione. 
 

Some days I bet Jussi would love to hire a support person to help him answer questions. Damien has done this and it enables him to do what he does best, work on the product. 

[MemoryPlayer]

17 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I met with him and his team in Munich. I understand the separation of duties going on there and I don’t expect him to reply. I often hear from Antione. 
 

Some days I bet Jussi would love to hire a support person to help him answer questions. Damien has done this and it enables him to do what he does best, work on the product. 

He trusted in my ears and asked for I test some beta versions, but this is the past...

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, MemoryPlayer said:

He trusted in my ears and asked for I test some beta versions, but this is the past...

At one time Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak responded to customer emails. Companies grow. 

[MemoryPlayer]

59 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

At one time Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak responded to customer emails. Companies grow. 

Your company is growing every day and you is giving attention to your customers and answering to them as you are doing with me by now!

Thank you for been available, attentive and respectful...

[bnbayer]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

At one time Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak responded to customer emails. Companies grow. 

Unfortunately, with that growth came a legal obligation to always act in the best interests of the shareholders. (NOT, you'll note, in the interests of the customers.) Also, acting first in the interests of the shareholders often drives away the creative people who created the product in the first place, just for love of the challenge and the fun of creating something new. Woz and Jobs become Sculley and a whole team of lawyers...

Any of this relevant to Audirvana? I don't have any inside knowledge, but from the outside the pattern looks familiar.

[Mark Robinson]

2 hours ago, MemoryPlayer said:

P.S.: HQPlayer sounds much better than Origin and Studio!

This is only true if you love the sound of oversampling. As a grammy winning mastering engineer, I can tell you point blank that oversampling pulls the master away from the original analog sound.  

 

How do I know this?  Because I have mastered countless songs from half inch 2 track tape (ATR-102), and the moment you start oversampling the original PCM transfer, you leave the analog capture behind and move towards a DSP sound that many people love because it makes them think their systems sound better than they really are.

 

When I listen to Audirvana VS HQPlayer using my 96khz PCM transfer (via Lavry Savitr ADC), I cannot say HQPlayer sounds better. 

[MemoryPlayer]

57 minutes ago, Mark Robinson said:

This is only true if you love the sound of oversampling. As a grammy winning mastering engineer, I can tell you point blank that oversampling pulls the master away from the original analog sound.  

 

How do I know this?  Because I have mastered countless songs from half inch 2 track tape (ATR-102), and the moment you start oversampling the original PCM transfer, you leave the analog capture behind and move towards a DSP sound that many people love because it makes them think their systems sound better than they really are.

 

When I listen to Audirvana VS HQPlayer using my 96khz PCM transfer (via Lavry Savitr ADC), I cannot say HQPlayer sounds better. 

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I'm sorry, but I love natural sound, and for my taste and ears, HQPlayer sounds better always, even with or no upsampling to PCM or DSD.

Lately I prefer listen HQPlayer upsamplig to 705.6/768kHz with PCM sources and DSD256 on Mac OS or DSD512 on Windows with DSD sources. 

Origin sounds more open e transparent than Audirvana 3.5 also with or no upsampling, but they let traces of fadigue after a few hours what never happens with HQPlayer!

Congratulations for your grammy awards! 👏👏👏

 

PS: Why only seven posts in seven years with so huge background?

I think we have so much to learn with you, Mark!

[The Computer Audiophile]

39 minutes ago, Mark Robinson said:

This is only true if you love the sound of oversampling. As a grammy winning mastering engineer, I can tell you point blank that oversampling pulls the master away from the original analog sound.  

 

How do I know this?  Because I have mastered countless songs from half inch 2 track tape (ATR-102), and the moment you start oversampling the original PCM transfer, you leave the analog capture behind and move towards a DSP sound that many people love because it makes them think their systems sound better than they really are.

 

When I listen to Audirvana VS HQPlayer using my 96khz PCM transfer (via Lavry Savitr ADC), I cannot say HQPlayer sounds better. 

Which non-oversampling DAC do you use?

[Mark Robinson]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which non-oversampling DAC do you use?

In mastering we use two DACs, a transfer DAC and a monitor DAC. The transfer DAC gets baked into the sound of the final master (that the consumer hears) and the monitor DAC is used only for the engineer's monitoring path.

 

My monitor DAC is a Lavry Quintessence, which is a very transparent delta sigma DAC, great at revealing whats actually there, and nothing more.

 

My transfer DACs are selected on a per project basis according to the sound quality of the incoming mixes (ie: thin, punchy, dark, jumpy, brittle, narrow, congested, etc).  They are the Holo May KTE (R2R NOS), SW1X DAC III Balanced (tube R2R NOS), and Merging DA8P (Delta Sigma OS).

[Jud]

25 minutes ago, Mark Robinson said:

In mastering we use two DACs, a transfer DAC and a monitor DAC. The transfer DAC gets baked into the sound of the final master (that the consumer hears) and the monitor DAC is used only for the engineer's monitoring path.

 

My monitor DAC is a Lavry Quintessence, which is a very transparent delta sigma DAC, great at revealing whats actually there, and nothing more.

 

My transfer DACs are selected on a per project basis according to the sound quality of the incoming mixes (ie: thin, punchy, dark, jumpy, brittle, narrow, congested, etc).  They are the Holo May KTE (R2R NOS), SW1X DAC III Balanced (tube R2R NOS), and Merging DA8P (Delta Sigma OS).

 

4 hours ago, Mark Robinson said:

This is only true if you love the sound of oversampling. As a grammy winning mastering engineer, I can tell you point blank that oversampling pulls the master away from the original analog sound.  

 

How do I know this?  Because I have mastered countless songs from half inch 2 track tape (ATR-102), and the moment you start oversampling the original PCM transfer, you leave the analog capture behind and move towards a DSP sound that many people love because it makes them think their systems sound better than they really are.

 

When I listen to Audirvana VS HQPlayer using my 96khz PCM transfer (via Lavry Savitr ADC), I cannot say HQPlayer sounds better. 

Some people think oversampling sounds better, some don't. (This is also somewhat dependent on the sample rate output by the ADC.) Some like the sound they get from HQPlayer, some from Audirvana, others don't hear a difference.

 

All of you should let me know when you have convinced everyone else that your way is the right one. 😂

[Mark Robinson]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Some people think oversampling sounds better, some don't. (This is also somewhat dependent on the sample rate output by the ADC.) Some like the sound they get from HQPlayer, some from Audirvana, others don't hear a difference.

 

All of you should let me know when you have convinced everyone else that your way is the right one. 😂

Because Im a dinosaur that still masters from half inch tape, im able to monitor the analog source before any digital touches the signal. Once I start choosing DACs, processors and ADCs, my mastering console allows me to switch between the original tape source and the roundtrip AD DA conversion to analyze the differences.

 

I can tell you all with 100% certainty that the sound of oversampling is emphatically not the sound of the analog source. Does it sound bad?  Obviously not, and in many cases it helps pull the mix apart in a way that could suit the users monitoring path, but to assume it is revealing the source in its truest light is false.

 

If someone prefers the sound of deviation from the source (oversampling), of course that is their right to prefer that deviation as long as they are aware that is one to begin with. Heaven forbid they think they are listening to the truth according to the intention of mix and mastering engineers when in fact they are not. :)

[AudioDoctor]

2 hours ago, Mark Robinson said:

My monitor DAC is a Lavry Quintessence, which is a very transparent delta sigma DAC, great at revealing whats actually there, and nothing more.

 

 

Am I mistaken or doesn't every delta sigma DAC do filtering and sampling on the music? I only know of one that doesn't, and the effort to make it do so was not insignificant.

 

How dare someone enjoy their music, in their house, in a way that they like, that differs from your opinion of how you like to listen to your music, in your house, and in a way you like...

[Mark Robinson]

34 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Am I mistaken or doesn't every delta sigma DAC do filtering and sampling on the music? I only know of one that doesn't, and the effort to make it do so was not insignificant.

 

How dare someone enjoy their music, in their house, in a way that they like, that differs from your opinion of how you like to listen to your music, in your house, and in a way you like...

I believe both my DS DACs are filtering and oversampling.  Some projects sound better when I transfer thru them, but most projects I prefer R2R NOS. The R2R NOS transfers are typically a little darker, but this can be easily made up for with a gentle shelving EQ.

 

I have no problem with how people like to enjoy their music in their homes (im not sure how this applies?), but I do have a problem when a delivery format changes the intended sound of a master while operating under the guise of transparency.

 

For example, I have a few thousand masters on Tidal that have been MQA'd after my delivery to the client.  The MQA process represents a clear deviation from the sound I delivered to the artist or label who hired me.  Im allowed to object to what MQA is doing because they are altering my work after the fact. In a similar way, this is what is happening to my masters when they are massively oversampled for playback - the sound deviates from the engineer's intention.

[MemoryPlayer]

1 hour ago, Mark Robinson said:

I believe both my DS DACs are filtering and oversampling.  Some projects sound better when I transfer thru them, but most projects I prefer R2R NOS. The R2R NOS transfers are typically a little darker, but this can be easily made up for with a gentle shelving EQ.

 

I have no problem with how people like to enjoy their music in their homes (im not sure how this applies?), but I do have a problem when a delivery format changes the intended sound of a master while operating under the guise of transparency.

 

For example, I have a few thousand masters on Tidal that have been MQA'd after my delivery to the client.  The MQA process represents a clear deviation from the sound I delivered to the artist or label who hired me.  Im allowed to object to what MQA is doing because they are altering my work after the fact. In a similar way, this is what is happening to my masters when they are massively oversampled for playback - the sound deviates from the engineer's intention.

MQA is a joke! A newer version of lossy MP3... 🤣🤣🤣

 

[Jud]

7 hours ago, Mark Robinson said:

I believe both my DS DACs are filtering and oversampling.  Some projects sound better when I transfer thru them, but most projects I prefer R2R NOS. The R2R NOS transfers are typically a little darker, but this can be easily made up for with a gentle shelving EQ.

 

I have no problem with how people like to enjoy their music in their homes (im not sure how this applies?), but I do have a problem when a delivery format changes the intended sound of a master while operating under the guise of transparency.

 

For example, I have a few thousand masters on Tidal that have been MQA'd after my delivery to the client.  The MQA process represents a clear deviation from the sound I delivered to the artist or label who hired me.  Im allowed to object to what MQA is doing because they are altering my work after the fact. In a similar way, this is what is happening to my masters when they are massively oversampled for playback - the sound deviates from the engineer's intention.

 

It's quite interesting that you object to MQA. MQA's filters are so short they in fact do very little filtering, leading to imaging and intermodulation distortion. This distortion is something they have in common with NOS DACs, particularly on RedBook material. However, whether the distortion products are strong enough to be audible is open to question.

 

Oversampling, particularly for RedBook material and if done well, removes much of this distortion and is thus measurably closer to the original. So if NOS is preferred, it's worth asking yourself what (if anything) it is about the sound that makes it so.

 

Of course what I said before about convincing everyone else you're right applies to me too, so if you're not convinced, that's perfectly fine. Peace. 🙂

 

(And lastly, apologies for continuing the off-topic.)

[Mark Robinson]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

It's quite interesting that you object to MQA. MQA's filters are so short they in fact do very little filtering, leading to imaging and intermodulation distortion. This distortion is something they have in common with NOS DACs, particularly on RedBook material. However, whether the distortion products are strong enough to be audible is open to question.

 

Oversampling, particularly for RedBook material and if done well, removes much of this distortion and is thus measurably closer to the original. So if NOS is preferred, it's worth asking yourself what (if anything) it is about the sound that makes it so.

 

Of course what I said before about convincing everyone else you're right applies to me too, so if you're not convinced, that's perfectly fine. Peace. 🙂

 

(And lastly, apologies for continuing the off-topic.)

It is hard to make generalizations about NOS vs OS, especially since both have a variety of different implementations that can affect their sound quality.  Ive mostly used delta sigma OS DACs in my work and they are definitely more linear sounding than R2R NOS DACs.  Thats a safe generalization.

 

However, once I started using NOS ladder DACs a few years ago, I noticed that the midrange presentation had a firmer, weightier quality compared to DS.  Coming from 20+ years of cutting tape (still own Stephens 821b, Studer 827mk2, and ATR-102 machines) this midrange weight has alluded me with PCM transfers. When I first heard 1 bit DSD, I got the mids back from tape. When I first heard R2R, I got most of the mids back from tape, but I lost some top end resolution due to some low level hash.

 

In mastering the mids are where the money is. The highs and lows can be more easily contoured with EQ, but there is no fixing the midrange quality, particularly the upper mids.  Using tubes and transformers can help smear the mids back into an analog representation, but now you get distortion, loss of separation and other masking effects.

 

Bottomline for me: I use OS DS for monitoring because of its linearity, low distortion and speed, while accepting the dreaded delta sigma etching thru the mids. I use R2R for a lot of transfers in order to restore the mids back into place, and also as cure for digititus resulting from way too much DSP being used in the DAW these days. Excessive plugin use at 44.1khz (aliasing) is the culprit behind that vast majority of modern-day sound quality issues, but thats another topic altogether.

 

Ok thats enough OT. Thanks for letting me share these thoughts. I use Audirvana Studio daily to check my work on various playback systems.  It lets me listen to my original 2496 prints against the Qobuz/Tidal deliveries on a level playing field.

[MemoryPlayer]

On 5/30/2022 at 12:38 PM, Mark Robinson said:

...It lets me listen to my original 2496 prints against the Qobuz/Tidal deliveries on a level playing field.

Only a doubt, are they sound the same, or Qobuz/Tidal change anything?