Solved AUDIRVĀNA (and other audio related chitchat)

Hi folks
As I said - as well as the software it's all for nought if the speaker and audio hardware is of "dubious quality". I'm assuming of course that the source music itself is of sufficient high quality to merit being listened to in high quality audio hardware -- if that's not the case then all this is really a waste of time.

Note also it needs serious fourier analysis and transforms to convert any digotal source back into analog.

Some nice light bedtime reading for you


probably more easier links but google has just taken a hit here -- duckduckgo though is still working. Better serach engine for lots of things these days now IMO.



I'm amazed at how much time people spend on getting music at top notch quality and then only ever listening to it on those hideous cheap bud earphones.

Cheers
jimbo

Yeah, I didn't think I would be impressed, but indeed I am (at least SQ wise). Still listening to it.

Dru2 said:

I didn't think I would be impressed

Click to expand...

Likewise...,
Okay..., granted, the software is installed on an ASUS VivoBook...,
I'm listening, via Bluetooth, on a $300.00 pair of Jabra headphones...,
I don't have all the fancy gear I should have, but,
I'm listening to a high quality TELARC Recording of some heavy Pipe Organ music......
I'm impressed!!!

They want 150 bucks Canadian though!!!

What's your "Audio" settings look like.

Edwin said:

They want 150 bucks Canadian though!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, though I'm impressed, I've not reached the "pay $119 (US) bucks for it" level yet

Still need to see and hear more before I decide. Thus far, I still prefer JRiver feature / GUI wise.

Anyway, If you want to get a good feel what features, or lack thereof, checkout the community forum. You don't have to register (I didn't) just check out some of the posts; especially if you plan on buying - they may reveal something you may not have noticed.

I see audio options are limited and there is no EQ included in the app, unlike JRiver which includes a 20-band EQ, parametric EQ, and other sound settings. @$60 bucks ($24 upgrades) for JRiver Media Cener (JMC), it includes a DSP studio package (first image). Audirvana Origin (AO) @$119 bucks has no included DSP package! Could that be an issue - depends.



BTW took a minute to figure out how to access what audio settings there are - you have to stop playback, click the lock icon on the lower right side of the app to unlock the "Exclusive Audio Access Mode". You'll then notice the greyed-out gear icons highlight. Clicking on a gear reveals their settings (which isn't much). Apparently, if you want EQ and other sound processing effects, you'll have to purchase them as plug-ins...



But yes, out box, the sound quality is quite impressive; but like any music app, not every file is going to sound superior on it. I find some genres - EDM, R&B, sound about the same or slightly better under JR vs. AV. On the other hand, my 24-bit Hi-Res files, particularly jazz/jazz vocals sound better under AV. Soundstage is also impressive under AO (though I find JR also does a good job here).

Of course, like everything Hi-Fi, equipment also plays a role. I can't claim high-end gear, but my 6-year-old, USB Teac UD-503 DAC, still performs well, so both apps are helped out here. And some of the things the app does (up-sampling for example) is better done through the DAC. My Sennheiser HD 700 headphones (also 6-years old) as are my Audioengine A5+ powered speaker and SB sub also play well. My setup.

All that said, my "opinion" is strictly subjective, and I'm going by my ears, and nothing scientific so YMMV :)

Am I ready to drop the $119 bucks on it? Not yet. I still need to learn the good, the bad, and ugly of the layout and features.

My two cents

Edwin said:

... the UI is nice,
file management is okay, but,
I think I can get foobar to sound almost as good!

Bear in mind, this comes out of my laptop, WASAPI/Line Out to Edifier speakers, not an elaborate setup by any means!!!

Recorded with my phone, sorry!!!
(Those Edifier's are punchy little b*tches, though!!!)

Click to expand...

Even though you would not have recorded it with your phone, we could not have heard the difference anyways.

I use HQ Player, and some DSD 128 dematerialized audio files, quite expensive but reward worth the stretch.

Dru2 said:

Am I ready to drop the $119 bucks on it? Not yet. I still need to learn the good, the bad, and ugly of the layout and features.

Click to expand...

Likewise.
I'll keep investigating while enjoying the trial, but, I doubt I'll fork over 150 bucks for it!
Still impressed, though!

An average domestic computer does have enough processing power, but without a DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) it still can't convert the digital signal to an analog signal after all the digital processing is done. Most DAC chips are of the Delta-Sigma variant (also called Sigma-Delta. Delta-sigma modulation - Wikipedia

While it certainly is true the fact that Fourier calculations require a lot of processing power if the goal is to yield accurate results, complex digital filters are possible to be designed (and built) in such a particular way that a more efficient, more cost effective strategy can be applied with good results many would call excellent even if it's still flawed from a purely technical, or theoretical point of view. Audio being part subjectiveness means it's personal, everyone has his/her own preferences, and in fact not everyone's hearing is the same or functions the same (it changes when people start to age).

The shape of your left ear might not even be a precise mirror of your right ear, also in addition to all that, and, the acoustic properties of the headphones, earphones or room-and-speaker combination you use also play a role, as does the rest of the playback chain─not to mention all the numerous qualities/imperfections in the recorded music piece itself so, the final product of how you perceive the music and how you emotionally connect to music via sound waves delivered through air is necessarily complex.

Where this gets both interesting and perhaps the most confusing IMO is if you factor in the subject of psychoacoustics, which is the part of neuroscience that tries to address how sound is perceived by living organisms via neural stimuli that traverse the nervous system before they enter the brain. It also can be used to clearly demonstrate the fact that A/B comparison tests and Double-Blind Tests (DBT) are fundamentally flawed if using them in order to compare one music playback chain to another chain.

For example, after you upgrade a system to make it sound more transparent, more revealing of subtle details that are part of the recording, then it can happen that a piece of recorded music, that you are highly familiar with, suddenly has not one, but two musical instruments softly playing in the background, as the inferior system always let you hear only one instrument, due to a lack of detailed sound or some other masking effect that had persistently been preventing you from hearing this particular subtlety that is unmistakingly real and has also been confirmed to be a genuine part of the music. Next, if you go back, from the improved system back to the original old system, what will happen is you'll always hear two instruments due to cognitive bias, i.e., knowing that there's two instruments there is what effectively causes hearing two instruments, due to how human hearing factually works.

This is why A/B'ing doesn't work. Yes, seeing the fancy nameplate on an amp or DAC causes people to think it sounds better than the one that looks shabby, but that doesn't also mean that the effects of cognitive bias can always be eliminated with a DBT. To the contrary, a DBT introduces a whole new set of cognitive bias factors making everything sound typically the same in situations that are similar to the experiment that I have described in my previous paragraph. Beyond doing them just for fun, A/B'ing sessions (and DBTs) have only very limited use, even for experts who are not just engineers, but who also have a formal degree in neuroscience and who are specialised in the field of psychoacoustics (e.g., Bob Stuart of Meridian Audio).

Just for the record here, I am not affiliated with Bob in any way, shape or form. I don't own anything he made, I don't have an MQA DAC nor have a Tidal MQA subscription─I only have read up on a few advanced topics in digital audio and some audio engineering topics. I'm not here to stir a debate about the importance of bi-wiring or anything like that. (Although I must add, I have done such things elsewhere─in an old past... lol)

Edwin said:

Likewise.
I'll keep investigating while enjoying the trial, but, I doubt I'll fork over 150 bucks for it!
Still impressed, though!

Click to expand...

After going over the interface today and upon further "listening tests" I have developed some mixed feelings I'll be posting later.

@hdmi, as sound is very subjective and we all have our personal opinions, so I'm not interested in deep diving into a subject that can rage on forever. We're simply here to discuss whether the "Audirvana" music app is worth using and worthy of the asking price.

In short, we just want to keep things simple, not deep dive into the science of audio sound.

Peace

@Edwin, Ok, so some final thoughts (maybe) with comparisons to JRiver Media Center…

First, I discovered an issue where if leave Audirvana Origin (AO) open, while opening JRiver Media Center (JRMC) and attempt to play a music file, JRMC fail and complain about an issue with the ASIO driver. To solve, I simply need to close AO and restart JRMC. Issue solved. To prevent it from happening, I need to make sure AO is closed. Somewhat an annoyance when A/B testing between apps, but.



Now, for things I’ve found that’ll keep me with JRMC, and things I wish JRMC had…

There is no CD ripping feature and no access to CD/DVD drives. JRMC wins here as it allows both access to CD/DVD drives and music ripping using various encoding formats…


You can edit metadata, but options are limited. JRMC has way more tagging options. AO on left / JRMC on right...


The app seems to remember where you left off when you close it, and will return to that area when you re-open it. This is one of those how you feel about it issues. I don't mind it.

On the main library screen when an album is playing it gets greyed, and a speaker icon is displayed over the album. Not a fan here. Also on the main screen to see the current track playing there’s a small window on the lower left of the library that shows current track playing with file type info. Would be nice if you could resize it.

One thing I like Under "Library" is when in the clicking "Albums" or "CD" link it will show your entire collection, and "Hi-Res" albums will have “HD” next to home icon, so you can easily identify Hi-Res Albums. Like this, wish JRMC had it.

Also, like how the library also automatically categorizes your files by file type and places them in different sections - Hi-Res, MQA, DSD, and CD (entire collection). Thus, if your album is determined to be Hi-Res, they will be placed in the Hi-Res category, DSD in the DSD section, CD is the library of all the file types. Like this level of organization.



There are only two main views on library page – Thumbnails and Lists. I found an issue where if you adjust the thumbnail size up, and back down, the cover art becomes pixelated. To solve, simply exit thumbnails view by going to say lists, then back to thumbnails and the images will be fine. That said, cover art images look sharper to me in JRMC.

Playlists – can be exported as M3U files which can be played in any media player, including Windows Media Player, and JRMC without issue. JRMC can do the same but also has more options.

Lastly, upon further listening…

When I said not every track if going to sound superior under an app, this was borne out today while listening to Hiroko Kokubu’s Peranzzeta on her "Bridge" CD (JVC XRCD2). This is a piano solo piece, and under AO, the piano is somewhat muffled, whereas under JRMC it’s more vibrant and live. Same goes for Hiromi’s “11: 49 PM” track off her Move CD (24bit/196K Hi-Res download) as well as the 16-bit Telarc CD. The piano on the track sounds muffled under AO, while live and clear under JRMC. To be frank (to me) both tracks sound hideous under AO.

So, while some titles sound great under AO (Steely Dan's "Black Cow" from AJA on my Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs CD, some albums not so great or not enough to definitively move away from JRMC. With that, I’ll be sticking to JRMC which works well with my setup… and it won’t cost $120 bucks. Don’t get me wrong AO is nice and sounds great, but as I said, not everything is going to sound superior on it, and I have a large and varied music library so overall, JRMC works better for me. YMMV.

Sorry for the long post but I wanted to get my thoughts out for the app. Thanks for alerting us though :)

Dru2 said:

@hdmi, as sound is very subjective and we all have our personal opinions, so I'm not interested in deep diving into a subject that can rage on forever.

Click to expand...

I am not interested in that either.

Dru2 said:

We're simply here to discuss whether the "Audirvana" music app is worth using and worthy of the asking price.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I have been discussing.

Dru2 said:

In short, we just want to keep things simple, not deep dive into the science of audio sound.

Click to expand...

This just means that you want to keep things subjective, not keep things simple. The logical way to keep it simple is to put a reasonable effort to try and understand how something works or doesn't work, and, the example description I gave about how people can demonstrate that listening to how Audirvana sounds next to foobar2000 with WASAPI or any other player that outputs the same exact musical data to a DAC is entirely subjective so not worth discussion can hardly be called science, as it is not too difficult for anyone who has average hearing to simply observe this fact by listening.

In short, you want to fall victim to your own bias? No problemo, but that is your own personal choice to make and yours alone, not ours, nor anyone else's, as that in fact is what the word "subjective" simply means, i.e., you either like the sound or you don't. Your ears aren't my ears, so I'm not interested in what you think about how Audirvana sounds. Just like I'm not interested in whether you like blue jackets. It's that simple, really.

@Dru2
Agree with you on pretty much all those points, thanks for sharing!

At least it was interesting and fun..., enjoy the trial while it lasts!

Still impressed!

I'm gonna Mark this as Solved.
Thanks very much everyone for your contributions.

However, if anyone else has an opinion or testimony on Audirvana, or just wanna throw your 2¢ in, go right ahead.

Edwin said:

I'm gonna Mark this as Solved.
Thanks very much everyone for your contributions.

However, if anyone else has an opinion or testimony on Audirvana, or just wanna throw your 2¢ in, go right ahead.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm out. Peace

A buddy of mine lent me a DragonFly DAC...,

... some files..., meh...,

other files..., WOW!

yet other files..., causing me to have a bowel movement!!!

My buddy owns Absolute Sound, here in town..., he said Audirvana is one the best apps/services!