Neutron remains superior.
For a direct USB output, HQPlayer is also superior in a bit-perfect playback, even without any upsampling.
IMO, in a direct USB output, Amarra is also superior, but it has too many bugs to be a functional solution for me.
Which one of those offers Qobuz integration?
Thanks
Matt
None of them.
they play only local files. Neutron plays also radios.
So for me better to stick to Audirvana as I do not have local files.
Matt
1 Like
Audirvana is an excellent choice for streaming.
As I play only local files, I’m waiting for the library management of AS to be improved in order to subscribe.
Sorry, I forgot that Amarra Luxe offers Qobuz and Tidal integration.
But it’s a buggy player… And you can use it only for direct USB output.
On their own these things would not explain any difference in sound since both versions of Audirvana have them, that’s correct. But I wasn’t referring to the white paper for these particulars. Rather, I referred to it for the concept that bit perfect players may sound different, if you believe the general argument of the paper.
If this is true, there could conceivably be differences in sound between bit perfect Audirvana versions, if other changes have been made between them.
Edit: One example I can give you from the early days when Audirvana was open source is that I and others used to use different compilers to make Audirvana binaries, and we fancied we could hear differences between the results. So it could conceivably be something as simple as compiler changes during the time between releases of different versions. (By the way, tests have been run on binaries of other applications resulting from different compilers, and there are indeed differences in the ways the different binaries function.)
1 Like
Your comments actually kind of confirm that Audirvāna modifies the bitstream before sending it to the DAC.
How should a bit-perfect streamer, transport, application work? When is it bit perfect?
Whether an audio-engine is bit-perfect or not bit-perfect, should not be the measure of one’s subjective appreciation of the auditioned sound-quality… The subjectiveness of any given playback experience moots the argument… There are too many system level variables, and one’s inherent biases that come into play that distort one’s perception, in-order to achieve reasonable certainty at the subjective level… Even if the audio-engine is ‘bit-perfect’ there will always be a subject that does not appreciate the sound, for whatever reason… So, whatever is the case with Audirvana Studio vs any other player, this comparison will always be fraught with bias and is subjective at best… If you like the sound… good… if not… then why? The determination of “why” will be next to impossible to quantify from subjective interpretations.
3 Likes
Truth is individual calculation
Which means because we all have different perspectives, there isn’t one singular truth, is there?
Steven Wilson- To The Bone
2 Likes
I use 3.5.44 Mac only with Qobuz, win-win too.
Matt
I’ve trialed Amarra Luxe. Just starting the software was buggy as hell. And it didn’t even work normally. Worst piece of software that I’ve ever tested.
1 Like
I have all 3 installed. Roon will be gone when it’s sub expires in June. I haven’t used 3.5 in ages. And basically only using AS of the 3. For local music, Qobuz and radio stations.
Apple Music I’m using on my phone as the Qobuz app is horrible on my Android phone. Music doesn’t want to play whatsoever. Unless I reboot the phone, then it works for a short period before quitting again. Tidal, Spotify and Apple Music worked just fine.
1 Like
Now here is a report/opinion I can find useful 
I don’t think anyone stated recently that bitperfect should be the only measure of deciding on sound quality.
I simply stated that the player versions sound different from each others.
It’s up to individual preference what we enjoy more.
For example i prefer the sound of HQPlayer in both bitperfect mode and in upsampling where I can hear the character of my DACs. With Audirvāna this character is somewhat hidden.
To me personally as a software engineer the more logical explanation of the differences is due to different internal signal processing as opposed to some magical optimization that nobody could quantify so far.
Sure, it’s the best sounding player for a computer. Leaves all the other in the dust.
It’s the best player in all circumstances : direct to USB from my Intel or M1 Macs or my Dell, as well as to the streamer with HQPlayer’s NAA rendering.
There’s no player that match it in DSD bit-perfect playback.
For PCM tracks, it is the only player with which I upsample. I use all the others in bit-perfect mode.
Try to upsample with it with your M1 Pro to the maximum DSD rate that your DAC supports, and you’ll hear how good HQPlayer is.
2 Likes
No, it’s not the bitstream that’s modified, it’s things like memory handling that could conceivably affect electrical noise and jitter without touching the bitstream.
1 Like
That would be the best:
Audirvana with HQPlayer integrated as upsampling engine.
Matt