I think it is corollary…
I’m presuming you are making your assessments of output sound-quality based on your playback component configuration which includes an LPS… Yes…?
You are speaking about sound-quality and the synergy of a computer platform running Linux + Audirvana Core player…The simple John Swenson (UpTone Audio) DYI hack should enhance many of these inexpensive component system configurations and any other SMPS utilized in the playback component chain… A lowering of @40 dBm in radiated energy (in the case of the simple hack) is nothing to snivel about.
Previously, I had posted the link to the UpTone SMPS but brought it down because I was concerned about over-voltage implications… I believe it is specifically produced to compliment the now out-of-stock UltraCap LPS 1.2 power-supply.
Let us know when you have a sound quality impression of Audirvana running on a Linux distro, or especially comparative impressions of two or more. That’s what the thread is about.
Does it matter, what my impression will be? It’s all subjective because of the variety of potential playback system configurations… The simple SMPS hack will give those folks using an SMPS now, a means to potentially elevate the sound of their Linux + Audirvana Core configuration… The sound-quality is intrinsic to the hardware/software synergies…
Sure, everybody wants to see if there is an improvement over the system they now employ without Audirvana Core, and if that audition is using an inexpensive power-supply, this simple hack may take that experience to another level of appreciation… After all. the title of your post is “Subjective Impressions of Sound Quality - Aurirvana Studio on Linux” and you didn’t define the playback system(s) component amalgamation by which you made these determinations.
An interesting experiment is running AS in Linux on the same hardware / power supply when it’s a small Windows PC or mac mini running AS, then play the same tracks on the same system to limit the subjectiveness to the intended topic of this thread.
Yes… and then if the system platform is using a generic SMPS applying the grounding hack, may improve the performance of the chosen software configuration… After all, Audirvana is all about the sound-quality produced on any given platform… This is the premise for using Audirvana. The quieter (less noise related jitter) on the computer platform, the better… I think you would agree on this…
Yes, that’s what I’ve been doing. So far I have tried Windows, Fedora, Xubuntu, ArcoLinux (Arch-based distro) desktop, Ubuntu Server, and Arch install without GUI (in ascending order of preference) on exactly the same hardware. Others have had different preferences or hear no difference.
This is of course to be expected, and it’s interesting to hear from others about what OSs or tweaks of those OSs sound best to them. There are always good ideas to be had from such exchanges.
From what I’ve observed here in the different threads, swapping these different OS applications is not exactly simple… The time it takes to set-up the comparison interferes with an accurate assessment, unless it is a dramatic, knock-your-socks-off experience… No?
I have tried Audirvana Studio installed on Debian 12.5 with desktop and also, the latest version of Linux Mint. These were both run on a Lenovo M83 tiny PC with 8Gb RAM, a 1Tb Samsung SSD and an older Intel i5 processor. I had previously run Audirvana Studio on Win10 via the Lenovo as well, but found I much preferred the sound quality from my HP laptop and Win11.
Surprisingly, there are noticeable differences between the two flavours of Linux. I found that I much preferred AS via Mint. Far more natural in sound quality than that from Debian. Debian was equivalent in sound quality, to that obtained from the laptop; not better or worse, just different, in that Debian gave me a more open midrange but less spatial cues and a flatter sound stage, whereas the Win11 install had a darker tonality, with slightly recessed vocals on a big soundstage. The Win11 can sound really good but, occasionally, it could be difficult to follow individual musical threads when the music got busy. Debian was more open, but less involving and a touch more mechanical. In my system context, Mint somehow combines the virtues of both but with an even bigger soundstage in which the micro detailing has stepped up a notch as well so, for now, I will be sticking with that. For now!
As an extra note, I thought it might be of benefit to list the equipment used. I have the aforementioned Lenovo PC, a Rega DAC-R, a passive DIY pre amp, a pair of Temple Audio class D Monoblock power amps and KEF R500 loudspeakers.
For this subjective assessment to have more relevance to anybody else, making available the names of the music tracks used in the evaluation is necessary, so that others can corroborate or not corroborate your perceptions or anybody’s perceptions (of any given platform) as best possible on their system amalgamations…
Really here, this type of comparative approach is a ‘snipe-hunt’ given the myriad of subjective system configurations and subjective listening conditions and electro-mechanical environment potentials, not to mention cognitive-biases… However being able to listen to the same tracks from which you made these observations, is better than nothing when making these subjective assessments of contextual sound-quality.
ArcoLinux has changed its isos and installation procedures a bit, so in order to get back to a minimal Arch install that plays well with my other OSs I’m going to have to either learn how to tweak the ArcoLinux install or go through the learning curve on how to install Arch manually (the archinstall script throws errors for me, and from my reading these particular types of errors are not uncommon).
But I like playing with this stuff, so stay tuned.
Hard to list specific tracks, as evaluation was done with myriad albums over an extended period of time, in order to avoid any ‘change is better’ misconceptions. But if you insist, then albums of note included ‘Home’ and ‘Ghosts’ by Hania Rani; ‘It Leads To This’ by The Pineapple Thief; ‘All This Will Be Yours’ by Bruce Soord; ‘Look Up’, ‘Hoops’ and ‘The Lines In The Trees’ by David O’Dowda; ‘The Raven That…’ by Steven Wilson. Also numerous tracks by Nat King Cole especially from the Billy May sessions. Personally, I see no reason to need a list of tracks from me, as you will know which of your albums will show up the strengths and weaknesses of your system as is. My comment is just my two pennerth, to be absorbed or dismissed as you see fit.
BTW, if you or anyone else reading the thread cares to share some music you enjoy and think might be interesting to listen to in this context, here’s a place for that:
Thanks…
This thread is “Subjective Impressions of Sound Quality-Audirvana Studio on Linux”… So… To make these subjective impressions contextually relevant to anybody trying to make such evaluations, (by virtue of this thread) reference tracks at the very least will provide common ground by which, any given subjective assertions in regard to playback sound-quality, on any flavor of Linux, by any given user subjective system amalgamation, here in the Community, can be best evaluated and understood in context. And If any consensus is reached, as to which flavor of Linux provides the best sound-quality, this assertion will have more credence.
Whether it was updating the archinstall script or I just got a little smarter about using it, it worked beautifully this time, and I have a minimal Arch Linux install (247 packages), no GUI. After just a bit of fiddling (had to add the config file as the package noted I might), Studio is up, running, and settings adjusted to my liking. Not able to listen on the main system tonight, but will check it out tomorrow.
So I have, and yep, I prefer the Arch Linux minimal install. Just for the sake of comparison, and not to say there is any particular effect in a modern computer due to this, my minimal install of Ubuntu Server 22.04 LTS has 522 packages installed versus the Arch Linux minimal install with 247 packages.
A quick and convenient music sample suggestion for those who have Qobuz is this past Friday’s release Butterfly Myth by Blunt Chunks (yep, really). On the opening track, Fill My Cup, there’s a tom that’s prominent in the mix. Though it’s not a percussion instrument that’s particularly high frequency, the transient response is good enough that the leading edges of the tom beats are real, physical things.
There are also vocals without reverb and vocals with reverb that are quite distinct, and even a bit of whistling.
Edit: Addition - Also from this past Friday’s Qobuz releases, T-Bone Burnett’s Come Back, 2nd track on his album The Other Side, has very nicely recorded acoustic guitar and dobro.
A common lexicon of descriptive terms will help bring these subjective observations into a unambiguous common language describing subjective impression(s).
From the Stereophile article and glossary of terminology:
Subjective audio is the evaluation of reproduced sound quality by ear. It is based on the novel idea that, since audio equipment is made to be listened to, what it sounds like is more important than how it measures. This was a natural outgrowth of the 1950s high-fidelity “revolution,” which spawned the notion that a component, and an audio system as a whole, should reproduce what is fed into it, without adding anything to it or subtracting anything from it.
Traditional measurements of such things as harmonic distortion, frequency response, and power output can reveal many things a product is doing imperfectly, but there have never been any generally accepted guidelines for equating the measurements with the way they affect the reproduced sound. And there was strong evidence that many of the things people were hearing were not being measured at all.
Subjective reviewing simply skirts the question of how objective test results relate to what we hear, endeavoring to describe what the reproducing system sounds like.
But what should it sound like? The pat answer, of course, is that it should sound like “the real thing,” but it’s a bit more complicated than that. If the system itself is accurate, it will reproduce what is on the recording. And if the recording itself isn’t an accurate representation of the original sound, an accurate sound won’t sound realistic. But what does the recording sound like? That’s hard to tell, because you can’t judge the fidelity of a recording without playing it, and you can’t judge the fidelity of the reproducing system without listening to it—usually by playing a recording through it. Since each is used to judge the other, it is difficult to tell much about either, except whether their combination sounds “real.” But it can be done.
Even after more than 116 years of technological advancement (footnote 1), today’s almost-perfect sound reproduction still cannot duplicate the sound of “the real thing” well enough to fool someone who has learned to listen analytically—a trained listener. But the goal of literal realism, or “accuracy,” remains the standard against which a subjective reviewer evaluates any audio product design.
The casual audiophile hears reproduced sound as a whole, and judges its quality according to whether it sounds “good.” Many reviewers never reach that stage of perception because—convinced by their measurements that all competing products sound “essentially the same”—they never make the effort to listen critically to reproduced sound. The reason a subjective reviewer hears more than the “objective” reviewer is not that his auditory equipment is superior. It’s because he has accepted the premise that identical measurements do not necessarily ensure identical sound, and has trained himself to hear the differences when they exist.
The experienced listener does not just hear the totality of reproduced sound. He hears into it, observing how the component or system handles a variety of sonic attributes which make up the whole. Instead of simply “all the highs and all the lows,” he may hear a coloration that his experience has shown to indicate a treble peak. Or he may hear a lengthening of normally brief bass notes which he has learned to equate with a low-frequency resonance or a lack of woofer damping. Of course, both these problems would be revealed by measurements, but equating their measured severity with their adverse effects on the sound is another matter. To do that, we need words to attach to these effects. Those words are what we call subjective terminology.
My desktop PC OSs, all with Audirvana Studio installed. From left to right, Win 11; Xubuntu 22.04 LTS (version of Ubuntu with XFCE desktop); ArcoLinux (Arch-based, many desktop options - I have XFCE installed); Arch Linux minimal install (no desktop/GUI); Ubuntu Server 22.04 LTS minimal install (no desktop/GUI). I also have Studio installed on my MacBook Pro M1 Max laptop.
