I agree 100%.
AS and 3.5 sounds exactly the same If no upsampling or DSP is involved.
Best result is obtain with Integer Mode + Direct Mode.
Without Direct Mode, SQ is comparable to ROON and other players used in BitPerfect mode.
Involving Upsampling and DSP make a signature sound, and I agree with @cxp some detail related to transient informations are not there. The tiny information of the bow touching the rope is stifled.
I have got both softwares on the same Mac mini with MOJAVE in order to have Direct Mode working, and I would not change for any reason my configuration because Direct mode is the key on MAC. Hope Kernel stream offer the same thing on PC.
No upsamplig wil lreplace a good quality DAC. That is the key of SQ
Now, the UI of 3.5 is not very nice and far away from what Roon does, and not better with AS bringing bugs and weaknesses of 3.5. Damien must react if he wants AS to be a succes, but there is a lot of job to do, and he should add a strong UI engineer to his team.
We discussed about it a lot in private, but this affirmation is still disputable.
All depends on what you call “a good quality DAC”. The SQ of the DACs is evolving all the time, and today you can get for €150-200 a DAC that sounds as good as a DAC that was considered high quality a few years ago.
In the same time, upsampling by the algorithms of the players and the CPU of the computer evolve too. Audirvana passed through iZotope, to SoX, and now it releases its new algorithme r8brain. Other developers of players improve their own algorithms for upsampling constantely too.
The only thing we can do as users is to listen to the upsampling with the algorithms of the player we use and the CPU of the computer and to evaluate if the sound is better or not than the upsampling by the processor of the DAC that we use and its algorithms.
There are audiophiles who buy dedicated upsamplers that are plagued between the computer and the DAC in order to get even a better sound rendition. These upscalers cost thousands of dollars. For instance, one of the poplar at the present is the “M Scaler” that costs $5.000 and its cables costs $2.000 more. The audiophiles who invest such sums in this equipment use it with very high quality, expensive DACs, and still consider them not good enough.
They’re delusional. It must be so stressful listening to music and always thinking ‘it could sound better’! This is not ‘love of music’, this is love of something else entirely, though I’m really unsure of what.
I don’t think so.
It’s not something they do very often. Like all of us, they upgrade their system every few years with better applications and equipments, because better products were released.
point is, most of it is snake oil…
speaker leads made from unicorn hair,
power cords from angel dust composite, amplifiers with asgard approved thorite output modules… etc.
It’s not an oil snake.
I could witness by myself how some extravagant equipments that friends had bought improve sound restitution in their system.
Personally, I dedicate to this hobby a small budget. But there are audiophiles to invest much more. It’s like car lovers who would buy a Ferarri. You won’t say it’s an oil snake, just because a Ferarri would bring you where want, like any more affordable vehicle.
a ferrari is demonstrably faster than a renault clio…
a 5000€ speaker cable is not demonstrably better than a 20€ cable.
and before you deny this, go check out the immense amount of evidence available that backs up my position. Beyond a certain level, what is measurable is not necessarily discernible in reality.
Also, on you analogy, though faster than a renault clio, the ferrari is not necessarily a better car. for instance it has less seating, less luggage space, is ridiculously thirsty on fuel, and not so easy to park.
Further more, getting in and out of a Ferrari can be taxing for people our age…
Good old MPV, anyone? 
I don’t know if there is a single cable that costs as much as 5.000€. But I could witness that cables that cost hundreds of euros do improve significantly sound quality. I have friends who bought such things, and we could compare.
EDIT
Regarding the Ferarri, you can have your own reasoning. There are other people who have their own, and they buy it. It’s their money, their pleasure, and their right.
Cognitive biases and placebo effects abound in this hobby. No one is immune from it (myself included), but it is important to recognize its existence.
I am not suggesting it’s not someone’s right to choose what to buy or not to buy.
But, as you may gather, I am no audiophile, and would no more buy a 500€ cable than a ferarri!
My background is live music production, big speakers and powerful amplifiers. I have copied this love of big speakers and powerful amps into my home listening system, which has not been upgraded for 30 years or so other than the introduction of computer based audio source rather than cds and vinyl. It sounds as good today as when I bought it. Would I change it if I had unlimited resources? Not likely! As you say, each to their own, audiophile or just plain music lover, the choice is yours. I do however reserve the right to remain, proveably, sceptical about claims made for much of the audiophile equipment.
I also believe that in a blind test a cable costing hundreds of euros is no better sonically than one costeing 50 euros. Some inferior cables allow interference to get in via the cable or connectors, or have some inappropriate properties such as high capacitance, or they are wired in a way which creates ground-loop problems, and in those cases a properly made cable may appear to work better, simply because the reality is that the inferior cable didn’t work properly. Just my opinion.
There are Placebo effects of course. For instance, users who listen in Bit perfect mode and say that such version or other version of Audirvana sounds better. In this mode all the versions, A+ 2.5, A3.5 and SA sound the same.
Furthermore, Just here for the LOLS.
A3.5 is more than adequate for my needs. I plays all the audio files i need, and it sorts my collection adequately…
It’s the unending search for the unattainable ‘perfection’ that i find amusing.
Same. Of course I was interested in Studio, but as the continuing debacle unfolds it’s becoming clear that it will probably not suit my needs, whereas 3.5 works near flawlessly for me. That said, since 3.5 is most likely abandonware now, at some point I’ll be on the lookout for alternatives.
There is a difference between analogue equipment and digital equipment.
Analogue equipment does not evolve much. I also have a 20 y/o Hi-Fi system, and I’m happy with it.
But digital equipment, software and components are improved constantly.
Speakers are still analogue? cables are still analogue? 20Khz is still the upper limit of human hearing? ( there may be rare exceptions! ) House shaking bass is still a requirement?
I think the difference is that some people spend more time listening to the equipment rather than the music?
It’s all subjective, and as such is merely opinion.
Classical music lovers will aim to replicate the sound of an orchestra in a concert hall, My aim has been to replicate the sound of a Public Enemy ( for example ) concert. Each to their own.
or this…https://youtu.be/xS9BSHeQEUk
Obviously, during all our discussing, I was speaking digital while you were apparently speaking analogue. There are digital cables that incorporate filters or electronic components…
The discussion started about either to up sample with the CPU of the computer and the algorithms of the player or with the DAC and its own algorithms. Or with a dedicated equipment to upsamling.
It was a digital topic.
Problem is, it’s difficult to say.
Most people discussing audiophile issues do not have a clear idea what is critical listening and what does it mean to repeatably hear the difference. Negative comments are perceived as an insult on one’s hearing and discussion is difficult.
But critical listening is a skill. It is not directly related to one’s hearing abilities. Trained expert will listen to the specific detail that normal person will not even imagine is there. To hear the difference, one needs to be specifically trained how to listen.
Audiophiles without that training claiming unusual findings usually do not perform that good int he blind tests. Probably there are exceptions but not too often.
Also, I think that critical listening training doesn’t do any good to one aiming to enjoy music.
As I said before, if there is something that can be confirmed in the blind test, there should be a way to measure it. If anyone has proved the opposite, would be interesting to know.
There are experts who are fine connoisseurs indeed.
But we as average users do perceive, at our uneducated level, the difference between one DAC or another, between the upsampling mode of one player or another, and we may hear the difference, if there’s any, between a given DAC cable or another…
It’s true that in some cases our own preferences may be subjective, because SQ, in our level, is also a question of personnel taste.
Oh yes…
You can find someone to sell you something (almost anything) for as much money as you are prepared to spend.
Here’s a speaker cable that costs €16,000 for a 2M pair. which is €4,000 per single metre.
More expensive cables are readily available.