Come on, what is your verdict on SQ of Studio?
Matt
Come on, what is your verdict on SQ of Studio?
Matt
It’s a very good point yet all these player apps sound different. I do not know the technical reason for this but I am very curious to find out.
The only consistency I experience is streaming something to a dlna renderer from a dlna media server in as-is bit perfect mode. Then it doesn’t matter what media server or control point is being used. It all sounds the same.
When Audirvana sends music to a USB DAC or to a DLNA renderer it does something with the bits in my opinion. Because that’s the only logical explanation why it sounds different.
It would be interesting if Damian or someone of Audirvana’s team will explain to us why it is that way.
Personally, I can not compare Studio to A 3.5, because I don’t have A 3.5.
I can check if there’s a difference in Bit perfect mode between Studio and Audirvana Plus 2.5.
How do you install r8brain on a Mac?
You have to stop first the playback. Then to click on the upsampling setting and choose r8brain.
Ah found it, thanks.
Me, when beta testing and when it was analyzing files, two or three times while listening i said to myself… Mmmm that CD sounds good !!
Its there by default… you can choose it or SOX for upsampling
Thanks, what about Qobuz?
Matt
I dont stream, just local file.
You get a difference because Audirvana handle the audio flow differently, it reduces the noise of the computer and priorities audio whatever the output (USB, UPnP, etc…) you are using.
Thank you. Very interesting.
People often wonder on audiophile forums why different audiophile players get different render in Bit perfect mode.
In that regard, the new ĀS app is very interesting as it shows the various steps the stream goes through. In my case, whether I’m using DLNA or my USB DAC, my ALAC is being upsampled in a PCM stream (from 16 to 64 bits) then downsampled in 32 bits to get through the software volume control before being sent. This is very interesting. When I disabled volume control, I found out ĀS was downsampling it in 32 bits anyway to send it. In my case, even if I’m not using the upsampling step, Audirvana always has an influence through its software volume control and by translating the FLAC to PCM.
On my mac I say yes.
I love this sound.
The two algo sound different but very good too, difficult to choose…
My System :
Mac Book Pro -UPNP> Digione Signature (GentooPlayer 6 gmediarender) -BNC> Audio GD Master 7 Singularity -XLR> BC 362D -> Quellis 1 Optima
On blind test my children have chosen with no hesitation R8
R8brain 2x upsampling does wonders to vocals and piano. Minimum phase
While it has nothing to do with audio quality, I have no interest in supporting rentier capitalism so I’ll stay with 3.5x. There are alternatives.
I downloaded A Studio this morning. At first, the sound quality seemed definitely less detailed than A 3.5. However taking a break, the difference is smaller, which makes little sense. I think it is possible that by “Analyzing audio files” in the background, the software is creating its own noise. Perhaps it makes more noise early in the process, which could explain the improvement I heard. I believe we should not do critical listening until Studio has completed its analysis. I will report again when the file analysis is done. Perhaps the software should pause the file analysis while music is playing for a better initial listening experience.
System: MacMini M1 > Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB cablel > Wyred 4 Sound Recovery USB reclocker > Bricasti M1 DAC > Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista 800 integrated amp > Golden Ear Triton Reference speakers
I listened through several files of music.
I listened to several bitrates, no upsampling. Aitos tube pre-amp, Aitos OTL for Quad ESL and electronic crossed to horn bass loudspeakers also with Aitos OTL. Zodiac DAC with Aitos power supply. Checked with Jecklin Float electrostatic earspeakers.
Of course these are very early impressions after a few hours of listening. Studio still has some inconveniences and bugs, but the sound surprised me for a 1.0 version.
With my Mac Mini M1, the sound of A Studio is much improved over A 3.5. With 3.5, there was an excess of high frequencies, as though each instrument was screaming, “Listen to me! Hear the high-frequency sheen on my tone quality!” This was fatiguing. With Studio, the sound is much more natural, musical and involving. I am drawn much more into the music and don’t want to stop listening. I wouldn’t call the Studio sound warm; its just that 3.5 was overly bright. The sound stage is wide and deep and there is plenty of impact when the music calls for it. Voices sound much more realistic.
I found that I had to wait until Studio was done analyzing audio files before I could get a fair comparison between 3.5 and Studio. I think analyzing these files created a lot of computer noise that really hurt the sound quality. When I first listened after installing Studio, when the analysis was just getting started, the sound was very muddy, but improved as the process continued. I did my critical listening after the audio file analysis was complete. I used a collection of about 20 classical and jazz selections with different sample rates and with DSF as well as PCM files.
My system: Mac Mini M1 16 GB RAM > Wireworld Platinum Starlight 7 USB cable > Wyred 4 Sound Recovery USB reclocker > Bricasti M1 DAC > Musical Fidelity Nu-Vista 800 integrated amp > Golden Ear Triton Reference speakers. Interconnects and speaker cables are Audience AU24 SE and power cables are Synergistic Research Elements CTS.