I have read that an upcoming version of Audirvana will have parametric EQ and now I need one for a new headphones. Is it possible to download a beta version of Audirvana with this feature? If not, when is it scheduled to be released? And if not, can recommend a good parametric EQ for Windows that is cheap or free? Thanks for your help.
1 Like
You might have a look at Tokyo Dawn Labs they have free and cheap… TDR VOS SlickEQ & TDR Nova…
Since you said headphones this might be of interest autoeq.app at https://autoeq.app
1 Like
You could ask support if they could add you to the beta testers.
@Antoine might be able to help you on that.
1 Like
Thank you both. I downloaded the software that @Ddude003 recommended and it worked but @Antoine also contacted me. I appreciate it.
2 Likes
Your welcome @LETRA… Was wondering if the Audirvana beta EQ is still a pretty vanilla, plain Jane, 6 band EQ ?
Someone else I had helped, using headphones, needed 10 bands… Why wouldn’t this be, at a minimum, an n-band EQ…
I haven’t gotten around to installing the Audirvana beta so I can’t give you an answer. With one of the Tokyo Dawn Labs VST plugins that you pointed me to, it was enough to do a High Self EQ with gain and Q. The truth is that I prefer very simple filters, although this one that I had seen advised didn’t give me a good result. I hope that the final version of Audirvana incorporates a parametric so good that we have nothing to envy to those of JRiver and Roon. I am really missing some new features to be added to Audirvana and some bugs that have been missing for too long. I think Audirvana lacks incentives other than better sound. And all the new features are going the streaming way which is not the best quality for audiophiles unless they invest quite a few thousand euros in complementary equipment like routers, switches, ethernet cables and filters.
1 Like
Isn’t that what Audirvāna is all about? Better sound? If that’s not your first priority than I think Audirvāna might not be your best option anyway.
2 Likes
You can do pretty well with some pretty standard routers, switches and ethernet cables… Here in the states a few hundred for routers and switches and ethernet cables are pretty cheap most likely less than a hundred for several cables… Put them all on the same power conditioner and your done…
If you googles VST Equalizers you can find literally hundreds with new and improved coming out every day…
I expect the native EQ that Audirvāna is developing to be of very high quality… Why would it be anything less?
1 Like
I have an ethernet-to-fiber converter and Supra ethernet cables, a Mutec external clock, a DDC Audio-GD and an Intona USB isolator and the streaming music quality is still well below local file playback. In my opinion streaming is not the way for audiophiles. On the other hand too much competition with Roon and devices like Eversolo for people who are tone-deaf.
1 Like
I know a lot about the best options. And one is not to jump into someone else’s thread to be nasty to someone who has surely been using Audirvana longer than you.
Well, it has not been my intention to sound nasty. If you feel that way, than I’m sorry.
It was just a genuine question because of your remark that Audirvāna doesn’t offer enough incentives besides great sound.
So in my opinion it’s very a legitimate question from my side if you feel that way.
1 Like
Clarified. Then I’ll answer you. Audirvana has the best sound and with the kernel tweaks and the conjunction with apps like Fidelizer in Windows I defend that it has a better sound than the most popular streamers like Eversolo or Wiim (besides it is much more comfortable and functional to use a computer than a device accessed through the mobile or tablet) but I think they should work more on some bugs that users suffer and add features and skills in the app. I use Audirvana with headphones and JRiver with music for speakers for a long time, even though I have a Lifetime license from Roon that I don’t use because of its poor sound quality. And in Audirvana I miss a lot of JRiver capabilities. I don’t need all of them, but I do need to see some improvement on that side. And also I can show an audiophile the difference in quality of playback of a local file versus a streaming file and I’m convinced that streaming is not the way. I’m surprised that there are still audiophiles still using Foobar 2000 precisely because of the library management capabilities the app has. And I’m not so sure there’s a large market of people willing to pay for a second subscription on top of the streaming platform if they don’t have an educated enough ear to prefer local files. That’s my reflection. I appreciate Audirvana very much and it’s on my signature in the forums I visit.
As an Audirvāna Studio user and no other, with decades of digital-audio playback and recording experience with multiple DAW systems and DSP from it’s inception, who does not subscribe to streaming services, nor employ networked digital-audio distribution in my playback system scenario, where my music library is attached locally to my Mac Studio M2 Max, and is satisfied with the library management in Audirvāna… All of these things are subjectively bound to individual perspectives and biases… The evolution of Audirvāna is moving at a pace that I believe to be adequate for the majority of audiophiles, however, not at the pace of some that seem to have expectations of, that are irrelevant to the premise of reproduction of the digital-audio signal as transparently as possible. The inclusion of a very high performance equalizer in Audirvāna that is complimentary to the fundamental premise of ultimate digital-audio signal integrity, in this context, and the employment of plug-ins, should not be a knee-jerk reaction to the whims and desires of those whose playback quality expectations are less than those of audiophiles that already appreciate the quality of sound that we now enjoy.
1 Like
That’s all well and good, but Audirvana keeps messing up tracks if the disc and number disc tags are not present or is unable to relate and suggest albums that have two artists separated by commas because it doesn’t follow the ID3 standard. I have been browsing the Audirvana forum for many years and I always see customer requests that are not solved. And I look at the release notes for each new version and there are few new features that users complain about or that answer their complaints. By the way, if you use Mac with Audirvana and you are looking for the best sound I recommend you try installing Audirvana on the bootcamp partition of an old Mac. The sound is much better on Windows and you can improve it even more if you use Fidelizer Pro in Purist mode. That requires that computer to be dedicated exclusively to audio playback, but the result is much better.
Everything you state here in your last post is highly subjective… Yes there are imperfections that may bother some and can be annoying and even disconcerting, however they don’t impinge on my personal appreciation of the playback quality of sound…
You make a ridiculous suggestion to run a virtual machine on-top of of macOS/hardware API’s for digital-audio playback… You have lost credibility with me. 
2 Likes
Well, it may seem very ridiculous to you, but your comment is the ridiculous to anyone who knows what they are talking about. You have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about running a virtual machine. Bootcamp does not consist of that nor can you run it on a new processor, that’s why I said an “old mac”. But I won’t explain it to you. You can brag about your “Mac Studio M2 Max” when you don’t even know Macs nor do I think you have much idea about sound or Audirvana. Now don’t be nasty I know ignorant people usually take it very badly when they are put on the spot.
3 Likes
Bootcamp is an installation app that installs Windoz in a separate disk partition as a native OS on intel based mac hardware… Big difference between guest OS apps and virtual machines and cross OS communication/emulation…
BTY would not have chosen that EQ you linked to as it looks to be more of a recording/tracking/mixing machine… I prefer mastering EQs… And I personally think that parametric EQs are not the way to go for Room Correction or Headphone/In ear Device Correction… Convolution + FIR filters seems to be the state of the art…
Every Room, Ear and Brain are different… Vive la difference…
1 Like
??? You are talking about running Windows on an Intel Mac as a virtual machine… Yes?
I’m not bragging about my computer… 
. Apparently you are the one that is ignorant… I have been an Apple computer user from the Apple IIe until today… I grew-up in Mountain View, California… I went to rival high-school that Steve Jobs and Steve Wosniak graduated from… I graduated the same year as Steve Jobs in 1972… I installed the first 8-track ProTools system in the world… I don’t suffer hubristic narcissists like you… I have decades of sound engineering and digital-audio recording engineering and production and systems design that covers the history of digital-audio recording and playback on computers.
1 Like
It is still using the hardware API’s which are not native to the Windows application.