Is Audirvāna Studio bit-perfect?

I am running AS and Audirvana 3.5 on a Windows computer. Dedicated Intel NUC with Windows 10. Also on Windows I can confirm the same sound differences. I also tried it with Camille Thomas (24/96) without upsampling. Also played some native DSD files (without upsampling) and same difference also.
Tried it on Windows with ASIO, WASAPI and Kernel Streaming. Those modes sound a tiny bit different from each other, but the difference between AS and 3.5 is still there.

EDIT:
So indeed it seems OS independent. Probably something in the sound engine of AS?

2 Likes

To what precisely do you refer in the UI?
(The fonts are always too small…)

Yes still too small, but now when you scroll in Local Album for example, you choose an album in the middle and go back to Local you are no more on the top of the window, you come back where you leaved. This problem was very boring.
I was not having anything in radio and podcast, it’s all working now (nevermind i don’t use it but some people do)

2 Likes

Great that they fixed that, it was very annoying to always go back to the top.

1 Like

What surprised me most is that A2.5, which is some 5 years old, sounds better.

I guess bit perfect doesn’t age :blush:

1 Like

Yes but there are always small differences between players.
I think that @AndyLubke can explain better than me why it is like that.

EDIT
For instance, I find that A2.5 has slightly a more metallic timbre than A3.5. So there was a slight improvement between A3.5 and A2.5.
But with AS there’s a much more important difference.

I’m glad you all can hear the difference as well.
And since 3.5 to me sounds more natural and engaging I’m content using it and hoping AS will at some point improve. As is I don’t see a point using it.

I like AS better, but it may be because my system is already super detailed and bright. So, Audivane 3.5 also having similar characteristics sounds a bit harsh to my ears.

What does it mean, “I like AS better”?
You were given here precise examples of sound deterioration that you can check by yourself and comment.

I like Audirvana Studio better. This is generally speaking, based on my music collection.

If you listen to techno, you may be right.

If there really is s difference in the audio playback engine, maybe Audirvana team could create profiles and let you choose the different “flavours”.

1 Like

No, I don’t listen to techno, but I do listen to classical and classic rock. I believe a hifi system can have a big impact on sound and it’s the synergy between a music player and the audio system that can make the difference in music enjoyment, more so than how certain transients sound.

You can add VST plugins (Audio Units on Mac) for exactly that reason. There are so many fantastic plugins out there.

I was thinking about more subtle adjustments maintaining bit-perfect output.

You have already 4 users with very different systems who say the same thing about the precise examples that were given.

I also have a large rock collection. Other users stream and can access to millions of tracks.
If you have precise examples, that others can check, in which AS sounds better than A3.5 without upsampling, you are welcomed to post them.

Plug-ins and EQ are not the topic of this thread. It’s about Bit-perfect.

Yes, perhaps I could hear the same differences and still prefer AS? Music is not a science, and even if it was, who is to say that 3.5 doesn’t exaggerate certain transients?

Actually, the intent was ‘bit perfect or not’.