@Okrim @magor
I find Audirvāna Studio 3.0 sound-quality to be superbly transparent, articulately revealing of micro-dynamic nuance, timbral color and contextual spatiality, in my playback scenario, where I modulate (up-sample) all PCM files to DSD256 in r8Brain after Cross-feed Virtual LR+C processing and play native Binaural DSD recordings/files on my computer platform/system (macOS) and my playback system amalgamation of components and tweaks, as a headphone-centric audiophile.
That is the point… There is no mechanism at our disposal to objectively or subjectively corroborate assessment(s) of sound-quality, because of disparagements of playback system design and computational platform resources and cognitive biases and descriptive lexicon.
The problem with these types of subjective assessments of sound-quality being posed here, is there is no corollary platform/system/environment references outside of the Audirvāna application…
There are too many variables in a subjective experience to be of much value… In this context I have provided my personal observations in this thread as perceived through my playback system, for what it is worth… I don’t expect anybody on this forum to appreciate my opinion.
I made a few recordings that highlight the differences between the versions on my system. Unfortunately, the recording conditions aren’t ideal, but the differences are still noticeable. If possible, I’ll share a Google Drive link here on the forum where you can listen to or download the files.
Or maybe I’m the only one who can hear the difference? 
I’ll also set up a poll.
Don’t waste your energy trying qualify your subjective assessment… A poll just reveals a larger demographic of subjective assessments… If you prefer a particular version of Audirvāna Studio that is fine… However, in the case of version 3.0 your observations do not parallel mine and having been a user for many years now and a participant in the Beta testing, I find no reason to go backwards… You do not have a corollary reference model of my playback system or hearing acuity… you are wasting your time trying to qualify your particular observations.
Cognitive bias will always be the master of subjective observations…
Subjective assessment of audio quality
– the means and methods within the EBUW. Hoeg (Deutsch Telekom Berkom)
L. Christensen (Danmarks Radio)
R. Walker (BBC)
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_274-hoeg.pdf
Audio Quality Assessment:
ECE 511 Guest Lecture
Michael Lester
Purdue University
https://engineering.purdue.edu/~ece511/lectureNotes2006/Lester_MRL_Audio_Quality.pdf
“On Some Biases Encountered in Modern Listening Tests”
Slawomir Zielinski
Institute of Sound Recording, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK
https://iosr.surrey.ac.uk/projects/ias/papers/Zielinski.pdf
Don’t waste your energy trying qualify your subjective assessment…
Mr. Agoldnear, on this forum, there are both positive reviews praising the sound quality of Audirvana and negative reviews regarding its sound quality across different versions. We could say these reviews are split down the middle.
From an outsider’s perspective, the picture looks like this: you dismiss the negative reviews as subjective and out of context, and you try to refute them using online sources (those reliability is unknown).
I hope you’ll use this energy to reassure those who argue that Audirvana’s sound quality has improved significantly in some versions—by pointing out that their observations are subjective.
No… I dismiss all subjective assessments of sound-quality including my personal subjective observations in this context of forum… I posted my opinion as contrast, but knowing full-well my observation is unique to my experience and why I stated:
The included references represent widely accepted precepts in the context of subjective assessment of sound-quality… Again, the cognitive bias of your interpretation will influence the value of any information in support of the fallibility of subjective observation when not quantified under controlled conditions.
Cognitive bias will always be the master of subjective observations…
Mr. Agoldnear.
Are you sure you’re not a chatbot?
Or do you think of yourself as some kind of guardian angel? Whose purpose is to neutralize every single constructive but negative post.
Let’s turn the tables. Show me credible measurements proving there’s no difference in sound quality between the two versions! If you don’t have any, you might as well admit there’s an audible difference.
I placed a microphone at my listening position. I played four songs on both versions and recorded them. There is a clear difference between the played recordings.
Seems that the new Audirvana version is about to heat up my laptop (HP Pavilion 8 GB) quite a bit, so that its fan is running constantly. Any way to avoid this?
Okay… It does not prove anything tangible for me on my system or anybody else…
Wow… I guess you believe your perceptions are representative of a general reality… this would be delusional… Apparently you do not grok that subjective assessment of sound-quality cannot be accurately measured for definitive assertion…
The only thing I will admit to, is that my observations and opinion are mine alone in this context. I don’t presume to speak for anybody else… What you perceive is yours alone.
How much playback preload memory are you allocating?
6 GB. But that’s only a subjective statement. I have no chance to measure it.
Lower the playback preload memory allocation to 1GB to get a baseline operational behavior.
Interesting. Calibrated mic? Measurements? Or are you saying the recorded differences are such that they should be easily detected by ear? (I’m not interrogating, just curious.)
I’d be very happy to listen to your playlist. However, I was happy enough with 3.0 that I’ve changed over, so I won’t be able to do comparisons. (I’m not much for listening comparisons anyway. I have some personal preferences that are formed from initial impressions rather than back and forth comparisons.) I’m just interested in checking out music that may be new to me. 
Has Antoine or Damien reported that the new version improves sound quality over the previous version? I do not recall reading that improved sound quality was a stated goal of the new version. I thought the new version was designed to improve the user interface experience. If some users have found that sound quality is not as good as the previous version, and they defendable evidence of this, I would would be interested in what Audirvāna would have to say. From my experience with listening to my system, I cannot say there is any discernible difference in sound quality in listening to the playlist that I use as a reference. I run Audirvāna on a Windows 11 dedicated built steamer server with a JCAT USB card connected to a Lampizator Baltic 4 DAC.
I think that’s indeed what the 3.0 version is all about. A better UI and more options to tweak the sound to ones personal taste.
I haven’t done an A/B comparison either, and haven’t noticed any big differences either. The only moment that I thought I heard a difference was when I updated from beta to production 3.0 version. That moment I got the impression that production version had some more ‘quietness’. Sounding a little more at ease than the beta. But that could also have been me imagining things.
This is from the Beta thread and initial statements:
Well subjectively they do sound different. it is pretty obvious if you run both versions back to back with the same tracks and same output. The difference is not day and night but it is there.
this is my personal experience and opinion and I do not care to prove it to the self proclaimed golden ear or other extremities with university research papers
Nothing to prove… Your experiential opinion is yours alone… 
