Looking for:
- Audirvāna Origin |
Audirvana Studio Review - Headfonia Reviews.
Because everyone was baffled at how powerful this little piece of code seemed to be. So much, that the company decided to change the name of its latest version: Audirvana Studio. Out of curiosity, I took a free trial first, then decided to take it for a few months, so that I could give you my impressions in the long run.
Audirvana Studio is primarily a third-party player. If you have your own music library as I do, the best options at the moment are Roon and Plex. Both offer a well-designed interface and powerful tools to manage your library. And, to this day, no other options gave me the same level of refinement when sorting my movies and series.
Sure, Plex also sorts my music but as good as it is, the sort engine remains sub-optimal, compared to Roon.
A nerdy guy with a passion for audio and gadgets, he likes to combine his DAC and his swiss knife. He likes spreadsheets, technical specs and all this amazing ly boring numbers. But most of all, he loves music: electro, classical, dubstep, Debussy : the daily playlist. A followup review by the author of, Audirvana Studio, working in conjunction with the Dirac Live 3 room-correction software would be greatly appreciated. Then, I learned that Roon does not perform well that way.
Once I learned how to deploy Roon properly, I found that it sounds as good or better than Audirvana, depending on the network bridge. Audirvana is a computer audio system. Roon is a network audio system that can function as computer audio, albeit poorly. I enjoyed your review, but I wish you had provided more detail on how you set up Roon and compared an optimal Audirvana configuration to an optimal Roon installation.
That would have put them on more even footing regarding sound quality. You were spot on about other differences. I also use a macbook for the core, streaming to a pi with a hat. Everything is just better and more focused with Audirvana. I am open to most things mattering, but I find it to be strange if thats better. I already go audiofool in other rooms. It's why I didn't buy Audirvana Studio for Windows. Studio engages exclusive access mode also for cloud-based data.
No need to polish turds. Also, the audio-output window of my Qobuz Sublime account already includes a 'Wasapi Exclusive Mode' option like Audirvana.
So I bought their new Origin version which only works on locally hosted files. When you install the program, it asks you to point it at the folder where your music resides. This collage of setup options shows key parameters you can adjust. It's all perfectly self-explanatory. For my favorite bit, I not only prefer the interface to J. I also fancy the sound more. However, I think it would be highly appreciated if platforms like Spotify or Amazon Music Unlimited were also supported.
As far as sound assessment is concerned, I can only refer to the day test run conducted with the demo version. The French manufacturer uses Audirvana to create an extremely practical technical basis and a front end for audiophile music enjoyment from your computer. The benefit of such a playback system, of course, depends on the speakers, headphones, loudspeakers, the location, the source material and last but not least, your own ears. You may want to allow yourself some time for sound comparisons.
To make things more difficult, you have to stop playback completely in order to change the rendering settings. Of course, Audirvana plays out its full strengths in a complete high-quality playback system. Purism counts here, which does justice to the ideal of true sound reproduction according to HiFi standards and transfers this virtue to high-resolution files, including streaming. However, even the extrapolation of low-resolution files subjectively and program-dependently brings a sound gain in the resolution, the spatial mapping, the dynamic conversion and the transient mapping.
As expected, the sound gain decreases with increasing quality of the source material. The first choice is, of course, generic files. Nowadays, conventional hi-fi systems no longer rely solely on records or CDs. Instead, digital audio files on computer-based media often serve as a source for music enjoyment. Audirvana sees itself as a music player, file manager and central interface for sound output before the sound makes its way to the ears via DA converters, power amplifiers, loudspeakers and, of course, headphones.
With its resolute audiophile approach, Audirvana is a product that is aimed at the audio connoisseur who wants to access high-resolution audio files on their computer, network storage or streaming services. At the same time, Audirvana offers the benefit of an audible sound upgrading for low-quality formats.
A single license allows the activation of the software on two computers but is limited to one platform per purchase. Lightweight, extremely compact True Wireless in-ears with adjustable transparency mode. Premium Bluetooth headphones with first-class noise-cancelling and convincing sound.
The graphics keep jumping up and down. The new remote was released yesterday. This is a beta program with major quality issues. This is the Pro version which we reviewed about two years. A review of the new Studio version will follow in a couple of weeks.
I doubt that an older version had fewer issues that the new one. And i guess is not based on PC experience, where this app is a full… mess. Sometime the app refuse to close. The sort operation in some playlist work, in others not at all. For a PC user experience is awful. Damien may have done a fantastic job at developing the best music player on the market, but sadly, the software is plagued by usability issues and generally speaking, a mediocre user experience.
A large portion of the UI in Audirvana studio is dedicated to streaming services that I am not interested in considering the poor quality of masters you are going to get on those services , but you still have to deal with a UI and monthly-based subscription model that forces you into the online steaming model. I am sorry to say that for me to be willing to commit to a subscription-based model, the bar should be raised higher: — A decent permanent license software that works.
Your email address will not be published. Audirvana Pro.
- Audirvana Pro Review |
Put up or shut up with the Audirvana challenge! |
Beyond basic configuration—display, power saving, etc. Out of the box, the default deactivates these settings and each must be applied individually for respective digital sources: disc, USB, and so on. AT discussed these in copious detail and his conclusions which I urge readers to reference were borne out by my own findings. Be prepared to spend an afternoon or two experimenting but the results are more than worth the effort. Remember there are no right or wrong answers here, and it only has to be done once as the settings are instantly saved in the KX software.
In the end, my listening preferences resulted in up-sampling settings of 2x or 4x and apodizing set to SDLY1. In unfiltered, non-oversampled default mode, the sound was flat, thin, dry, and rhythmically uninvolving, but with preferred settings I observed greater focus, presence, dimension, and ambient energy.
This is basic, no-nonsense player software no remote app for a smart device is currently available to get up and running but many users will likely opt for advanced player software from the likes of Audirvana as they become acquainted with potential of the medium. Digital playback seemed to pack on a lot of generally positive sonic qualities: low noise, tight, extended bass, flat frequency response—a lot of calories if you will, but ultimately less filling musically. The spatial and dimensional components in particular seemed like more of an afterthought.
And the actual physical expression of the artists on the stage whether solo or in full orchestral song appeared flat, dry, almost wraith-like in its lack of texture and harmonic verisimilitude. My most common impression was an elevation of dynamics and image layering, elements that I more closely associate with analog playback.
Foremost among my listening impressions was the overall sonic atmosphere that the KX conveyed—dense, rich, and saturated, and awash with ambient information. You bet. The choice and implementation of all the internal components play a role in how the device works and sounds. The D10s utilizes a socketed op-amp chip, which facilitates replacing chips if desired.
So, needless to say, op-amp roll at your own risk! Well implemented DACs are increasingly difficult to distinguish by ear alone. Especially those that are based on the same DAC chip. Yes, the additional circuitry built into the DAC can impact the sound quality, but we are discussing very subtle differences in most cases.
What I find interesting is how well new budget models are performing when compared to much more expensive older models. The coveted left-most blue portion of the graph used to be the home of only the pricey audio elite. Now budget models such as the D10s are solidly edging out the old.
Audio Science Review sums up their findings of the D10s as:. Is it better? A bit like arguing bit is significantly better sounding than bit. Enroll me in a blind listening test? Yes, I think the Chord Mojo does sound different than other DACs I own, but those results are definitely the sum of the unique implementation and components in that little box. And this is likely reflected quite well in the performance measurements.
I can hear how my amps and headphones work together to produce their own particular unique flavor of sound. This DAC does what it should. Namely, it decodes and seamlessly passes along neutral, uncolored, and unaltered audio to the things that make and change the sound. The D10s sounds transparent in my chain. Subjective subtleties such as richness, tonality, micro-dynamics, soundstage, etc. A budget product is always a compromise. Price, performance, or features.
Pick 2 of the 3. Budget price with excellent measured performance, but a limited and somewhat unique set of features. How much you want or need those features is going to determine if this is the right DAC for you. Hate the large amber LED display, or want something with more upscale aesthetics? Then you may want to look elsewhere. Do you need balanced audio outputs or a variety of digital inputs? Need Bluetooth? Unless it tests out poorly. Jmudrick Addicted to Fun and Learning.
Joined Oct 7, Messages Likes I've been using the device for awhile. No issues with sound quality but a couple of real usability issues with the Home app: there is no way to queue multiple Qobuz albums unless you go to the trouble of creating a playlist in advance of the listening session.
Even worse, DLNA file playback requires you queue one track at a time. Notwithstanding, it's become my go-to for Qobuz playback as at least the gapless playback works more reliably than Audirvana for me.
I just received my Wiim streamer, and it is a nice little unit. Easy to set up. I am using optical out to Schiit Modi. Does this imply that So long as it has stable clocks and a decent UI, it should work fine. Seems good value if you already have a DAC, amp etc. Can it use a DLNA source? Jmudrick said:. See comment above. Yes but enqueue one track at a time with my server software Bubbleupnp, Emby. FuzzTone Member. Joined Mar 7, Messages 39 Likes 7.
Joined Oct 16, Messages 72 Likes Is it acceptable? Amir has a review unit. I asked him to check built-in DAC as well as line-in performance. Thank you. You must log in or register to reply here. Similar threads.
Replies Views 97K. Sunday at AM mediocrebutarrogant. WiiM mini streamer. Replies 5 Views 2K.
Comments
Post a Comment