Votre logiciel Audirvana est exceptionnel en termes de qualité sonore. Je ne connais aucun autre programme qui restitue la musique en streaming de façon aussi naturelle et authentique. C’est tout simplement une référence sonore.
Mais c’est justement pour cela que c’est encore plus frustrant de constater à quel point le logiciel est instable et peu convivial dans bien des aspects.
La connexion USB plante sans arrêt.
Les réglages d’appareils sélectionnés disparaissent régulièrement.
L’interface utilisateur est profondément illogique.
Il n’existe aucun guide clair, aucun bouton de réparation ou page d’aide efficace.
Et pour les utilisateurs fidèles de longue date : aucun support visible, aucune reconnaissance.
Au final, c’est un paradoxe amer : Ce n’est pas la qualité de la musique qui déçoit – mais le temps de vie perdu à faire fonctionner votre logiciel.
Pensez à ceux qui ont appris à aimer la musique grâce à vous – et à qui vous coupez sans cesse l’accès par négligence technique.
Ce dont nous avons besoin, ce n’est pas plus de fidélité sonore –
mais plus de fiabilité.
I don’t have reliability issues with Audirvāna Studio running on my M2 Max Mac Studio with 64GB RAM on macOS 15.4… I did not have reliability issues with my prior platform (MacBook Pro 2.7GHz i7, with 16 GB RAM) Transmission via USB 3.0 converted to USB 2.0 delivered to my DAC… I modulate (up-sample) all PCM to DSD128 via r8Brain after HRTF processing in the AU plug-in module.
Please paste your debug information report here so folks have more insight into your Audirvāna configuration and playback system architecture…
I’ve used Audirvana for a long time and it’s been reliable on my old Mac minis. I recently moved from 3.5 to Studio and I find its user interface “good enough”. The few issues I’ve had were related to DNLA (and have ultimately been resolved with the right Audirvana settings and updates to my UltraRendu). USB always worked flawlessly.
I’ve always received a reply to support requests. If you’d like forum members to contribute, can you explain what exactly isn’t working for you? What computer and USB DAC are you using?
Would you mind sharing your parameters for DSD upsamoling? Any idea if the parameters are affected when only upsampled to DSD64 (my DAC, Devialet) goes only to DSD64.
I’m not sure whether your question about upsampling settings was directed at me, but here are my settings:
SoX Filter Bandwidth (% Nyquist): 94.5
SoX Filter Max. Length: 23296kk
SoX Filter Anti-Aliasing (%): 96
SoX Filter Phase (Min. Phase to Linear): 66
DSD Sigma-Delta Modulator Filter Type: A (4th order)
Safe volume reduction before DSD upsampling: -4dB
For explanations on how I reached these settings, see my recent review on the Studio forum.
I have a Benchmark DAC3 which is also limited to DSD64. But I have to say that I’ve always been happy with DSD64. After all, all my SACDs are also DSD64 and they sound awesome.
I posted the question in a different thread, well knowing that it could be misleading.
I am very much interested in the Benchmark DAC 3, as I am thinking of replacing my ageing Devialet. One combination I am particularly interested is the DAC 3 combined with Benchmark‘s AHB2 amplifier. Another DAC I am closely following is the RME ADI 2. This seems to be a capable DAC as well, in particular allowing PCM/DSD 768 kHz. A lot to play with!
Nevertheless, whatever I choose, the question remains of a good player. And your, observations come very handy!
I use the DSD analog filter in the TEAC UD-501 (FIR 2, fc=90Hz, Gain= +0.3dB) in concert with my settings in r8Brain, to fine tune the sound-quality for my playback system and my personal aesthetics . I reduce the gain before DSD modulation because I employ an AU plug-in for HRTF processing which adds gain…
Mac Studio → Thunderbolt 3/4 → Thunderbolt 3/4 PCIe expansion chassis which hosts my USB 3.0 controller card and a ElFidelity AX-107 PCIe buss power filtering/buffering card. → USB 3.0 → iFI-Audio iGalvanic-3 (now discontinued) → 4" Up-tone Audio USBPC (USB 2.0 fully shielded printed circuit board ‘cable’) → DAC
All cabling including power is WireWorld, except for the power cable to the Mac Studio, Thunderbolt cable and the USBPC 2.0 card… all connections including power are treated with 99% silver contact enhancement and I utilize specifically chosen ferrite chokes in strategic locations on both signal and power cables. Other tweaks are involved in the delivery of power/filtering.
TEAC and Esoteric are one in the same… Different target markets and level of refinement and cost differentials… TEAC benefits from the Esoteric R&D.
Out of curiosity I would like to ask if you get with your new M2 Max platform a superior SQ to your prior i7 platform. I am only asking for your subjective evaluation. It is very interesting since the only variable seems to be the computer and maybe the OS, IIUC you used with both platforms the same DAC.
Thank you
What struck me initially, was an incrementally blacker noise-floor that was already deep-space … Outside of this, everything functions smoothly and is very responsive (8GB of playback pre-load memory allocated)… Subsequent of this first impression, I isolated the Mac Studio from my router and the router from my modem, using iFI-Audio LAN iSilencers, which probably lowers the noise-floor, but I get the feeling the noise-floor is limited by the DAC architecture.
I evaluated three less-expensive DACs before I got the Benchmark DAC3. One reason I was drawn to the Benchmark is that I can use it as a “pass through” between my receiver (which I use for surround playback) and my mono block amplifiers. This means that for stereo listening, it totally bypasses any other equipment.
What I also love about the Benchmark is its (to my ears – and as seems to be the focus of Benchmark) neutral character. No added warmth or exaggerated highs or artificial soundstage… what’s in a great master is reproduced faithfully, but poor masters also sound poor.
What surprised me perhaps the most, is that my mono-blocks and speakers seem to sound best when the Yamaha analog LR channels go through the Benchmark’s pre-amplifier, instead of connecting the Yamaha directly to the amplifiers. It’s a bit weird for me, but after researching this I understand that a pre-amplifier can indeed improve the sound quality by having a cleaner analog output stage (the Benchmark enables selecting the best output voltage using internal jumpers) and possibly better-matched impedance for the amps. So investing in the Benchmark also means investing in a really great pre-amp.
A DAC like this is a significant purchase, so I would recommend comparing with one or two other DACs. The Benchmark DAC3 design is not that new, but the fact that they’re still selling it (and it’s still getting great reviews) shows that the latest technological specifications don’t say everything. I’m personally not going to replace it any time soon. Right now I’m looking into trying a different ethernet cable and Auva isolators as potential next improvement to my listening setup.
Oh and if you do get the Benchmark DAC3, I’m very curious whether my SoX upsampling and DSD64 conversion settings work well for you, too. It is my hunch that they are only party DAC-dependent, but also related to amplifier and speaker (notably tweeter) properties.
It‘s a race head to head between the Benchmark DAC 3 and the RME ADI-2 DAC. The latter is signifacantly less expensive than the Benchmark, but it is widely accepted as an excellent DAC. I can evaluate the RME-ADI-2 from a local dealer, while the Benchmark can‘t other than buying it. I know they have a good return policy, though.
You do realize that the Benchmark DAC utilizing ESS chipsets do not support an unfettered 1-bit PDM (DSD) signal path to low-pass filtered D/A circuitry… Yes?
The RME ADI-2 utilizes ESS chipsets that do not support an unfettered 1-bit PDM signal path to the multi-bit D/A circuitry…
The ADI-2 Pro utilizes AKM chipsets that support an unfettered 1-bit PDM signal path to simple low-pass D/A circuitry…
Qualitative assessment aside…
Keep in mind the general digital-audio production workflow is PCM-centric…
