Perhaps some of the "scientists" here who do own Audirvana could get up off the couch and run some tests themselves.
#Roon vs audirvana trial#
I do not own Audirvana, my trial has expired and have no plans to buy Audirvana right now. OS X is more complicated with Swinsian, Colibri, Bitperfect, Fidelia, Decibel all offering a slightly different feature set (some offer great playlists, others offer AU plugin integration, others very granular control over the DAC).
#Roon vs audirvana windows#
Otherwise and others on Windows would just run foobar, which is free, bit perfect and awesome. The difference between Audirvana and bit perfect is clearly audible – which is exactly why those who prefer Audirvana, buy it at €100 a pop. Trying to measure the difference with REW and a UMIK-1 via speakers would lead to inconclusive results. Measuring the difference: the difference is subtle enough the only way to measure it besides with one's ears would be to pipe the output back into a high quality input interface and diff the files. All testing on OS X 10.13 and OS X 10.14. Audirvana sounded "better" but it was the only one of five or six players to sound different.
I already owned two bit-perfect players and bought another two bit perfect and installed another open source bit perfect player to test against Audirvana. Those of you asking me to test this: I have. Personally, I have no issue with intelligent sweetening, but the acolytes of ASR and Amir should.Įven I would rather have control over my own sweetening via AU plugins than have blanket sweetening imposed across all playback. Indeed, Damien Plisson is playing both ends against the middle here. Audirvana takes a bit perfect sound and then adds its "special sauce". The support/sales ticket is even more clear. * really I'm not, I'm an agnostic here – both measurements and listening tests have their place the evaluation of audio equipment My one serious criticism of the built-in sweetening in Audirvana: Plisson should allow users to turn off the Audirvana filters with a checkbox to allow real bit-perfect playback. While a subjectivist* like me prefers bit-perfect! What a strange world. Still, I'm astonished to find so many Audirvana users among men of science though. Damien knows what his business as a coder and he's got a good ear. Oh, and my opinion, Audirvana sweetening is successful for most music. He could test Audirvana against foobar (which I also successfully tested on OS X for identical bit-perfect playback though the OS X foobar is a limited feature beta version). I'd suggest do some bit perfect playback tests between Audirvana and the applications I mentioned but Amir is a Windows lifer, considering his past. He mentions that he did the test with Audirvana playback. It surprised him in an otherwise perfect measurement performance. I can't find it out now, but has a test graph of stereo separation for one of the DACs he tested which shows a blurry line in the middle instead of a clean one. No bit-perfect player can sound better than another through the identical DAC unless that player is sweetening/treating the sound. Why do you think Audirvana sounds better? Because it's more bit-perfect? Surely you realise that bit-perfect is an absolute. I actually went to the trouble to compare them all before reaching this conclusion. Otherwise Audirvana would sound just like all the other (about half a dozen) bit-perfect players for OS X. How much more clear does it have to be? The publisher himself is claiming that he's sweetening the signal.Īs I mentioned, of course Audirvana is improving/sweetening the sound. Damien specifically answers a customer (in French, in which I'm fluent): Guys read the thread more attentively please before barking.
0 kommentar(er)
