Audirvāna 3.5 vs Origin ( Mac)

Hello @bnbayer,

Can you send me this track in particular at so I can check reproduce this on my side?

This is the best and most accurate answer to my question yet! Thank you RunHomeSlow! :+1:

I did extensive comparison between 3.5 and Origin and to me and my system, 3.5 is remarkably better.

My setup is Audeze LCD-X paired with RME ADI-2 FS DAC. I’ve applied the oratory parametric eq for the Audeze, in the DAC.

My settings in both versions are: no upsampling, no DSP signal processing.

My findings are:

  • 3.5 sounds fuller, a bit warmer and more analog
  • 3.5 has a bit more pronounced bass. Bass is also more pleasant, but less defined than in Origin.
  • Origin has a bit wider soundstage and maybe better separation of instruments.
  • Origin has brighter trebles, which I find unpleasant and fatiguing.
  • 3.5 has more forward voicing. Female voices sound amazing.

I cannot comprehend what makes these sound differences, as all my hardware and user software configs are exactly the same.


Damien tweaked the sound differently in all his versions of Audirvana.
Same as JRiver will not sound the same or HQPlayer even if you play all bit perfect :grinning:

I can appreciate that. However, my curiosity makes me want to understand what type of undisclosed tweaks shape the sound. It’s also a bit weird, as I can tweak the app myself so much, but there are parts which I cannot control or know what’s behind it.

They don’t have to disclose the secret sauce, I’d be happy if they’d only admit there’s one.

It matters to me, I like transparency.

Well, THAT escalated quickly :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Very well described! Thank you!

1 Like

It was mentioned during the presentation of Studio by Damien. You can rewatch the video.

I’m not picking on you personally… I’m speaking to this forum community in general…
What was the purpose of this test in regard to the Audirvana community at large?

I’m sorry to say, nothing was solved here regarding sound-quality, if there is no consensus… This holds true for all anecdotally subjective assessments of the sound quality of any playback engine, being posted here on this forum…

The key words here are “to me”…
We all know the final arbiter of sound-quality is you, because this is your system, however, more information is needed to remove biases that may be playing into these interpretations and whether or not a testing process that mitigates, as best possible, bias influence potentials, was employed… What type of test did you apply? A/B or A/B/X or what?

Can you describe how these comparisons were made and any differences in time gaps between assessments and the length of auditions and any corroborating anecdotal interpretations from others experiencing this simultaneously that had you reaching a consensus?

Otherwise your assessment of sound-quality is purely subjective, as it is centric to your experience alone and without any quantifiable data or consensus whatsoever… We need quantifiable assessment not anecdotal opinion and subjective observations, that provide little insight into these things.

:notes: :eye: :headphones: :eye: :notes:

I don

1 Like

Are you a moderator of this community to determine what it needs and it doesn’t?

If you are, I’m not going to be posting here any longer. If you are not, you are out of your place.

Did I hurt anything by sharing my observations? You could assume that I don’t gain anything from it and also that I did the best I could. I didn’t A/B test because I didn’t think it was necessary. The differences were clear enough, consistently.

You and anyone would be welcome to friendly request further information on how I carried out this test. But I don’t appreciate your patronizing tone.


You are right… I should have made this statement generally and not to your specific posting.

However, I didn’t question your interpretations and perceptions… I just question the methodology of posts like this and their value… My question is, what purpose do these sorts of opinions serve? …I’m happy to hear a rationale for these types of posts… Perhaps you can provide insight on a rationale?

:notes: :eye: :headphones: :eye: :notes:

I just downloaded Origin and find that with my system, music is smoother, cleaner (more space between instruments) and the sound stage is more forward than with 3.5. I am using r8brain with 99.5 % Nyquist, 130 stop band attenuation and linear phase.

I’m settled in with Origin.

Just saying…

1 Like

De gustibus non est disputandum


Agree, we all have different tastes in music, sonic interpretation, room characteristics, and equipment. As long as we’re digging our listening experience, what else really matters?



1 Like