Clearly sounds better!
1 Like
Well, it seems that my Audirvana Equalizer settings have been ignored when first running the new Studio version. After activating them, the »subjective sound quality« was undoubtedly reduced.
I’m sure it’s not the new Studio version that is to blame here but rather my equalizer settings. Will have to review them.
1 Like
No equalizer settings here (not yet, anyway). Sounds excellent, I think. (Xubuntu 24.04 LTS - will install on my preferred minimal Arch OS when the Arch User Repository is updated with 3.0.)
2 Likes
Audirvana 3.0 is GLORIOUS! It made my system sound so much better and it also finally! fixed my Hifiman Serenades 512 DSD output issues. It didnt work before, had constant crackling, popping noises and forced me to move down to DSD256 upsampling. Not anymore! And, as I’ve said, it sounds better now than ever before. Its crazy! Love you, Audirvana!
3 Likes
I am always a little careful on the verdict regarding sound quality. It would require a return to v2.11 for me to actually be able to say anything meaningful on that.
So I give my opinion on this 3.0 compared to the beta I have been testing. Have not measured it, so it is not objective.
My impression is that there’s a little more ease in the 3.0 compared to the beta. I was enjoying the beta a lot already and the end result doesn’t disappoint. It sounds very, very good indeed.
1 Like
What would you objectively measure to determine sound-quality differentials in a subjective assessment ? 
Why would there be a sound-quality difference between Audirvāna Studio v3 Beta (2.99.23) and Audirvāna Studio 3 ?
I don’t know if it has an impact, but sometimes beta has more control processes in the background to monitor performance.
Wouldn’t that create more processing overhead ? … I’m not hearing anything dramatically different in the sound-quality of v3 versus the Beta (2.99.23)…
Maybe there was processing overhead but my M2 Max Mac Studio with 64GB RAM obviates the influences of the processes you describe? … So, on other systems there may be an audible difference in sound-quality…?
This speaks to the problem with comparitive subjective assessments of sound-quality… 
Side remark:
Most UI elements are too large for my taste, although I shifted the Size Slider all the way to the left.
1 Like
Could not agree more. They upsized fonts and UI elements and free space to make it more Roon like in an attempt to lure some Roon users I assume.
I always found the look of the Roon UI “pig ugly” and assumed Roon users want to read their screens from a listening distance of 6 ft or just needed glasses and refused to use them. I could only ever tolerate it when running the Roon app full screen, along side other macOS apps on a 6k screen it looked awful.
I find I tend to use AS now full screen to avoid having it look out of place along side other open apps. After using the beta since December I have got more used to it. But for my taste a step backwards that results in way more mouse swiping and scrolling.
There are however a lot of nice additions to the UI and software features which make it value positive for me.
I suppose I can look at it and say if I ever decide to switch back to Roon I will see it as less ugly than I used too. Not that that is likely!
1 Like
Could be, I use a Dell from the stone age. I noticed before that with the Linux Core Player on Linux Mint it performed way better than with the Windows version on Windows 10. I have always assumed that was because the laptop has more headroom due to the fact that there now are way less processes in the background.
So I assume that the sound of your Mac, because of its specs, could well be less effected by these kind of processes as much as my brick
Audirvana Equalizer of new Studio version, under Window 11: Appears to be very tricky (if possible at all) to key in numerical values via keyboard.
More like… The signal produced by Audirvāna Studio Beta v3 running on my M2 MAX Mac Studio with 64GB of RAM (400GB/s memory bandwidth) platform, was not affected by any ‘Beta’ sub-processes (If they existed)… In comparison to Audirvāna Studio 3.0 output quality.
From my subjective perspective, I am very satisfied with the quality of the signal reproduced by my playback system architecture… I am continually impressed across all genre and file type and very pleased with the continued attention being paid to sound-quality that I perceive in my playback scenario, and have come to expect…
1 Like
I have installed Audirvana Studio 3.0 on windows, when I pause the playing cpu usage for the Audirvana Studio proces goes to 100%.
I hate it. I want the previous version back. Anyone have it, please?
1 Like
Reinstall it from a security back-up of your system/files..
I’ve noticed a bug with Tidal favorites: when I scroll through the tracks, the titles are displayed incorrectly. However, everything looks fine when I use my keyboard to go through the list. Does anyone know where to find older Audirvana Studio versions? I’d like to roll back to the last version before 3.0.
Xero,
I have the same problem.
3 Likes
Hate the new interface with enlarged fonts. Please enable the old font size and style as an option that users could choose from.
3 Likes