What is my claim? I forgot.
If you want to see just how much difference there can be between bit-perfect outputs and you have RPi laying around, try RuneAudio.
It allows you to play with kernel profiles and see how much that makes a difference.
1 Like
Your claim was that in your rock library, SA sounds better in bit-perfect mode than A3.5.
As I can not check it, I asked you to give as an example of a given track, from a given album, from a given edition, from a given artist, just as I did, so we could test it.
Wow, the fact that ‘bit perfect’ can sound so different depending on player ‘tweaks’ really stretches my credibility. The term ‘snake oil’ popped in my head, sorry couldn’t help it.
Try it for yourself. You’ll experience anything between no difference at all to quite easily noticeable difference. All depending on your DAC. If you have multiple DACs, even better. You can really thoroughly test this.
Yes, it does sound better, but I am using Johnnystar ears. I really wouldn’t expect you to agree if you listened to my music collection on my audio system in my listening room without Johnnystar ears.
Oh, I don’t doubt it.
I have the SACD of this album. I listened to the first minute of this track in a DSD 64 rip, and I confirm what you heard with your system. The difference is very clear indeed.
With A3.5, the cello sounds much more natural and pleasant and the sound has a relief.
With AS, the cello is muffled a bit, and overall the sound is aggressive!
I’ll post tomorrow morning my observations with chamber music by J.S. Bach.
EDIT
@Alain You didn’t precise in which resolution you listened to this Yo-Yo Ma track, but from what I’m experiencing, I realize that the higher the resolution is, the clearer you hear what’s wrong. And as I said, I tried it with DSD 64.
2 Likes
I don’t doubt there is a difference. However I am happy with how AS generally sounds with my system and my music. I own A3.5x, so I may decide to move back to it again if and when the spirit moves me.
Having said that, it’s great to see differing opinions. It’s not a contest as to who is right and who is wrong.
My equipment:
AS/Audirvana runs on a Mac Mini 2018 with 16 Gb RAM, Ethernet Cat7a to a Raspberry Pi 4B running RopieeeXL powered by a Shanti LPS, USB cable van den Hul (The Ultimate) going into a Devialet Expert 120 that power ATC SCM19 speakers.
In my system, and I stress the fact ,my system‘ the effect is opposite: I‘d describe Audirvana 3.5 being more muffled than AS (though I haven’t listened to the latest update released yesterday). And this effect is noticeable throughout my album collection, most noticeable with the BlueNote recordings from the sixties/early seventies.
I might remember having read similar comments that AS is a tad brighter than 3.5, but I wouldn’t remember where.
Nevertheless, I quite like both versions of Audirvana.
No use for me! I strictly refuse upsampling! It introduces all kinds of artifacts and one is torn which filters and parameters to use. I went through this with HQPlayer and it was an endeavor without end.
Either a recording is good and then the album sounds good or it‘s bad and there’s nothing you can do.
1 Like
Interesting observation.
That’s why I put the disclaimer re equipment and hearing.
I know!
It is a good thing trying to break down differences between the two player versions into perceivable entities. But given the fact that audio chains tend to be quite complex (certainly in my case), it is often hard to find something that is perceived equally between individuals.
But I‘ll have a go at Metheny‘s tracks you describe. I am curious to see if my ears are as good as yours!
The thing that strikes me most in AS is its spatial resolution. Often a track jolts me out of my listening seat when I all of a sudden hear instruments being spatially resolved I had never heard before. Whether this is REAL and present in the original recording, I have no idea! But it is very interesting. I don’t hear such effects in Roon, and only once I am aware of them, slightly in Audirvana 3.5.
If that is true what I am hearing ( and not mental delusion), I would say AS is a true step forward, in spite the fact that it has the tendency (again in my system!) to sound brighter, though never harsh.
You have an excellent (and very expensive) DAC/amp and speakers.
So I completely accept that it works differently from what I use.
Who is speaking about upsampling?
All the tests that are reported here, by me or others, are in a strict bit-perfect mode. You should maybe read the previous posts in the thread.
And why are you speaking about HQPlayer?
You jumped obviously into the talk instead of following what was said from the beginning.
Sorry, I misunderstood your statement when you wrote: , when compared carefully with HighRes and DSD…,‘ I assumed you‘d do some oversampling. My mistake!
But no reason to go overboard @Doudou, I did follow this thread. Mind you, everyone has the right to jump into a thread at any time!
I didn’t deny you right. What you said in your post about upsampling and HQPlayer was disconnected from the flow of the conversation.
And I apologized, so let’s leave it at that, shall we?
You’re welcomed, no problem.
I think that it’s interesting to check seriously the point that we are studying. On the examples that were given, there are four persons here with different systems on different platforms who agree that they hear the same on the precise examples that were given.
@Alain said that he is going to write a mail to support. I think that it will be helpful for Audirvana, if Alain gives them the list of tracks, from given albums, that were examined here, and that Damien will be able check by himself, since he must have Qobuz subscription.
In my opinion, this is a highly important feedback on the player.
EDIT
BTW, I’ll be happy to discuss with you about upsampling, but I won’t reply to you about it here, because it will derail the thread.
Good, Doudou, no hard feelings on my side either 
!
Yes, there is definitely a common denominator here with regards to examples given in this thread.
As I already mentioned, I play the Saxophone (though very amateurish) and I concentrate whether I can hear the timbre of the saxophones the various sax players use. There’s a quite a difference when you listen to Joe Henderson’s Selmer Mark VI versus Dexter Gordon’s Conn Lady Face. It’s the sum of the keynote and the miriad of all overtones that results in the charcteristic timbre of each instrument.
Now taking this as a criterion, both, Audirvana 3.5 and AS are perfectly well suited in this respect, though, in Audirvana 3.5, due to its (darkish) characteristics, empasizes more Dexter Gordon’s darkish sounding sax. However, every single player I tested so far, is capable of handling these differences, I haven’t come across one that couldn’t. But among all the players, Audirvana and Roon are sonically the two top players, with minor differences. Everyone has to decide which aspects are most important for him-/herself and choose the proper player to live with.
And of course, I’d love to discuss upsampling. Maybe you PM me?
Regards, Paul