https://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana_3.5.41.dmg
https://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana_3.5.42.dmg
https://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana_3.5.43.dmg
https://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana_3.5.44.dmg
https://audirvana.com/delivery/Audirvana_3.5.46.dmg
3 Likes
Thank you very much!
1 Like
Try to filter the power of your router or cable modem, often the harsh sound is distortion from there. Audioquest Jitterbug FMJ could also help if your connectivity between computer and DAC is USB .
1 Like
My findings so far:
AS 1.0 (more depth soundstage, more holographic sound) > A 3.5.44 (Very similar to AS 1.0, but slightly worse) > AS 1.2 and A 3.5.46 > A 3.5.41 and .42 (less depth and holographic, but more body)
AS 1.3 sound signature seems very close to 3.5.44 now.
3.5 is a tad âhappierâ sounding, 1.3 is tad more clinical, but really close now.
Uhm â really just beginning to do the Compare Boogie 
But could it be that the AS output is noticeably louder than one of 3.5? Will have to double-check that âŚ
In my case with a local USB DAC the volume appears the same between 1.3 and 3.5.
1.2 and earlier were a shade quieter.
Very strange for an application famous for being bit perfect!
I donât think it is bit perfect.
Even if itâs not I still always liked how it sounds.
Been trying to get to the bottom of this for some time.
Itâs a bit puzzling to me how you can say in such a short time that Studio is better than 3.5, which may have accompanied you for many years.
Although Studio is more or less a supposed beta phase.
Do you still pay for it, why actually?
Studio certainly has everything that is probably missing in 3.5 and has always been demanded by the community.
Nevertheless, I have my doubts that in the short time since Studio was released, it can be said to be better than 3.5 in terms of sound.
What do you use to make such a statement?
I read along more as a quiet reader and actually try to read out whether Studio is really that much better and always come across disillusionment in reports submitted by the community.
Hence the questions.
With 3.5 I find 10 out of 10 reports where 8 out of 10 share the same opinion and insights and also agree.
With Studio, that is not the case. 10 out of 10 contributions, maybe 2 out of 10 are enthusiastic about it, 5 out of 10 say 3.5 is better and the rest are rather undecided.
Apart from that, it would be good to be able to say what makes Studio so much better than 3.5.
Some keep it short and say itâs cool or donât have enough plausible explanation for what makes Studio so much better.
I just see that a lot has been posted and most of it is relatively short, just that the post has more appeal, at least thatâs how it comes across.
And also a slight hater side who used 3.5 for years and now it is/should be crap.
Which is not meant to be hateful but honestly 3.5 canât have sucked all these years or can it?
Iâd like to try Studio but itâs still too buggy for me and even if I donât like it, itâs supposed to be hard to go back to 3.5 for the most part, which I donât want to do until itâs better clarified.
1 Like
This is how good old Cool Edit interprets the (equally converted) output of from left to right 3.5.46 / AS 1.3.0.0 WASAPI / AS 1.3.0.0 KERNEL of a given song.
So the volume difference between 3.5.46 and AS 1.3.0.0 seems to be something about 2,57 dB 
3 Likes
ECDESIGNS, a Dutch DAC manufacturer made recently tests with different software for bit perfect playback with these results:
âECD (Gordon) confirmed that they could not get Audirvana to play âbit-perfectâ on Windows 10 either. Could be a setting, in which case they (Audirvana) are not making it obvious ! On Mac, Gordon confirmed Audirvana is bit-perfect, and JRiver on Windows with Wasapi.â
So Audirvana 3.5 for Mac seems to be bit perfect.
Matt
Just a quick quote that I did not come up with but necessary in this instance.
Opinions are like a$$holes, everybodyâs got one.
If my man wants to say AS > A3.5, then itâs his opinion, which is true to him, itâs not meant to force you to share his opinion.
You have your problems which maybe he doesnât so experiences are different hence the different opinion.
You know youâre being hateful when near the end of your opinion you state not meaning to be hateful. Then you end by stating that you would like to try AS but itâs too buggy? So you havenât tried it and you find hard to believe the opinion of someone who has?
3 Likes
This would do AS a favour. The louder playing software appears to be superior sounding.
Matt
I wonât dare to claim that my observations are valuable at all or based on solid evidence. But if they were, any comparing listening would have to take that into account somehow. Like turning the ASâ volume a little bit down in the first place 
Very interesting, thanks! I will look this up.
Then Iâm puzzled why these âbit perfectâ apps sound different.
Bugs for the Mac were fixed in Studio V1.3.
I am listening to it and have the impression that V1.3 sounds better than the previous versions. But everything is not rosy.
In Bit perfect mode the sound is very good.
Upsampling 16/44.1 and 24/96 FLAC tracks, in r8brain mode, to DSD 256, makes only a subtle difference compared to the playback in Bit perfect mode.
Oddly, when I upsample 16/44.1 and 24/96 FLAC tracks to the option âMax DAC frequencyâ, I get crackles, both with r8brain and SoX. I rerouted the computer but the crackles remain.
When playing DSD tracks the sound is good.
I use an iFi micro iDSD Black Label DAC and Audeze LCD-2 headphones.
I donât have A3.5, so I compared AS with A+ 2.5.
In Bit perfect mode both players sounded the same, when I played 16/44.1 and 24/96 FLAC tracks.
Unsurprisingly, there was no difference between the two.
As I said before, with AS V1.3, PCM upsamling provokes crackles. I did not have these crackles with V1-V1.2. For this reason, it was not possible to compare the new r8brain mode to the old iZotope mode of A+ 2.5 nor to upsampling modes of other players that I have.
I hope I could test r8brain mode with the next version of AS, if it is released before the end of the trial period.
When playing DSD64 tracks, ripped from a SACD, AS sounded better than A+ 2.5. The sound was clearer.
For the sake of comparison, I played the same DSF tracks with HQPlayer. I set it with Filter sinc-M. It sounded more natural than AS with more details and subtlety, more analogue like.
â˘â˘â˘â˘â˘â˘â˘â˘â˘â˘
This was a SQ test, but I must also say that as an application A+ 2.5 is reactive and smooth, while AS is often displaying the spinning ball.
Thanks for the feedback!
I wonder if the beach balls were due to having the music files on the USB flash drive? Those can be pretty slow.
I didnât experience any crackles with upsampling with my HD DAC1. But also it didnât improve the sound for me so I donât spend too much time on that.