Audirvana vs Roon

[Deleted member 31750]

Software for playback is becoming an essential part of the audio chain. Many claim that one sound better than the other and mostly that Audirvana has a better performance. I tried both and couldn’t tell the difference so I end up using Audirvana because the features are a better match to my needs. Which one you prefer and is there a way to put these two softwares to the test from measurements point of view?

 

[VintageFlanker]

Many claim that one sound better than the other and mostly that Audirvana has a better performance.

Sure. As many say that silver cables sound better than copper ones.

Joke aside: When there are two challengers, audiophiles tend to always prefer the outsider. The other being seen as some mainstream thing for ignorant beginners. It happens that Roon is the most used overall (or at least more represented worldwide).
If it was the other way around, they would have called Roon sounding better. In reality: both sound 100% the same and if not, one is doing "bitperfect" very wrong. Then, usability, ecosystem, features are up to anyone to chose.

 

[Chrispy]

Don't see the need for either myself.

 

[Deleted member 31750]

Sure. As many say that silver cables sound better than copper ones.

Joke aside: When there are two challengers, audiophiles tend to always prefer the outsider. The other being seen as some mainstream thing for ignorant beginners. It happens that Roon is the most used overall (or at least more represented worldwide).
If it was the other way around, they would have called Roon sounding better. In reality: both sound 100% the same and if not, one is doing "bitperfect" very wrong. Then, usability, ecosystem, features are up to anyone to chose.

I see your point and I tend to agree but I am not 100% sure that are the same. Not better or worst but different? to me it didn’t make any dif in sound and was all down to features, UI etc. Will be very interesting so see some measurements.

 

[Deleted member 31750]

Don't see the need for either myself.

Then you are all good.

 

[Chrispy]

Then you are all good.

Yep don't need the additional software to what I use already just to tie it together, I can do that on my own. Thought this might be somewhat relevant to the claims you mentioned in the OP https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...truth-about-dsp-volume-control-in-roon.23552/

 

[Deleted member 31750]

Yep don't need the additional software to what I use already just to tie it together, I can do that on my own. Thought this might be somewhat relevant to the claims you mentioned in the OP https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...truth-about-dsp-volume-control-in-roon.23552/

Thanks for the link. Went through but is not a published paper in a scientific journal. It’s a white paper. I liked more the discussion below the white paper tho.

 

[Chrispy]

Thanks for the link. Went through but is not a published paper in a scientific journal. It’s a white paper. I liked more the discussion below the white paper tho.

I find that basing a discussion on the various subjective feelings of users not much use either....

 

[Deleted member 31750]

I find that basing a discussion on the various subjective feelings of users not much use either....

We are not talking about subjective. We are talking about the possibility to put the softwares to the test with measurements. Listening is the other half of the process which is personal and equally important if not more important. Observation is the foundation of science

 

[BDWoody]

Which one you prefer

I use Roon, but not based on any expectation of better sound quality.

Listening is the other half of the process which is personal and equally important if not more important. Observation is the foundation of science

As long as the 'listening' part of the process has some needed controls. Too often, that's the part that's missing...completely.

 

[Deleted member 31750]

I use Roon, but not based on any expectation of better sound quality.



As long as the 'listening' part of the process has some needed controls. Too often, that's the part that's missing...completely.

Observation has no controls and the purpose is not to be provided as evidence but just as an observation. That’s part of science as a process

 

[BDWoody]

Observation has no controls and the purpose is not to be provided as evidence but just as an observation. That’s part of science as a process

If the observation is that one sounds better than the other, the controls would be needed to validate that. Most aren't interested in the actual validation of the observation. That's the difference between anecdote and evidence.

 

[Raindog123]

I just like Roon.

Yes it is somewhat expensive, but it glues together quite a few of my music-listening components across the house. Speaker systems in four different rooms and two headphone stations (and two apple TVs that in reality are never used for music). Qobuz, Tidal and my ripped CD collection. And a rather advanced DSP.

Personally, I do not have experience with Audirvana to compare (only read their reviews while deciding) but have extensive 4-year experience with Auralic's Lightning DS (aka LDS) ecosystem. Almost a year ago dropped the LDS in favor of Roon - mainly for Auralic (and iDevices for controls) HW exclusivity reason - and am very happy with my Roon choice.

 

[Chrispy]

We are not talking about subjective. We are talking about the possibility to put the softwares to the test with measurements. Listening is the other half of the process which is personal and equally important if not more important. Observation is the foundation of science

This sounds fairly well based in subjectivity: "Many claim that one sound better than the other and mostly that Audirvana has a better performance". Or was this "performance" based on some thing solid to consider?

 

[Deleted member 31750]

If the observation is that one sounds better than the other, the controls would be needed to validate that. Most aren't interested in the actual validation of the observation. That's the difference between anecdote and evidence.

Totally agree. That’s my point. Will be interesting to take some measurements and see if these observations can be verified. Personally I tried both and couldn’t tell the difference

 

[zym1010]

AFAIK, Audirvana is bit perfect, modulus possible jitter. I did an experiment to verify it a while ago.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/312578030396700386/

that being said, Audirvana now only offers a subscription-based product (Audirvana Studio) and has removed the old Audirvana 3.5 from their website. I will probably keep using the old 3.5 version until I have time to implement my own music library management software.

 

[Deleted member 31750]

AFAIK, Audirvana is bit perfect, modulus possible jitter. I did an experiment to verify it a while ago.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/312578030396700386/

that being said, Audirvana now only offers a subscription-based product (Audirvana Studio) and has removed the old Audirvana 3.5 from their website. I will probably keep using the old 3.5 version until I have time to implement my own music library management software.

Do you have any results from your experiment?

 

[zym1010]

Do you have any results from your experiment?

The result is shown in the URL. Basically a “recording” of Audirvana’s output using Audacity is exactly the same as the original files stores in 24/96, bit by bit.

 

[Ata]

I think it is safe to assume that, everything else being equal, Audirvana (3.5/Studio) and Roon offer the same SQ. Roon has much better UI and feature set, but comes at a premium price. Audirvana Studio tries to close the gap, but they are many releases away from catching up on stability, UI polish and features.

 

[Jmudrick]

My main complaint with Audirvana had been the mobile app blew up trying to load a large number of Qobuz favorites. This is now fixed in the Android app using Studio.