Audible difference in players? (Audirvana, JRiver, Roon, MusicBee, etc.)

[Keith_W]

...I could try some of my regular measurements, in the digital domain, with the same test files out of Roon, Jriver, Audirvana, Foobar...

I don't expect to find much of a difference. If there's any, one is definitely doing something wrong.

There was another thread on ASR showing there is a difference in output volume between different convolution engines. Roon and JRiver both have convolution engines. I would be very interested if you could test that as well. Right now I only have one convolution engine, so I can't test it myself

 

[Julf]

Given a "bit-perfect" transmission, which many players offer, the jitter issue remains. I can see how hardware and software can have an effect on the jitter. So the use of specialised, low noise systems doesn't seem absurd to me. Recently I have introduced reclockers to my multichannel SPDIF setup and really like the result.

It can be an issue with SPDIF, less so with USB, but most modern DACs contain internal ASRC:s that are, in effect, reclockers.

 

[krabapple]

While I like to objectively measure things, when I am able to, I also use my ears as the final judge.

Quite possibly a mistake, unless you are careful.

Given a "bit-perfect" transmission, which many players offer, the jitter issue remains. I can see how hardware and software can have an effect on the jitter. So the use of specialised, low noise systems doesn't seem absurd to me. Recently I have introduced reclockers to my multichannel SPDIF setup and really like the result.

First, demonstrate that you can hear the jitter at the level these devices produce. While playing music.

 

[Tortie]

Then the publisher is either playing both ends against the middle or you are misunderstanding some of his utterances. But this page is pretty clear...claiming bit perfect

Are there settings in there that may add some kind of optional dsp /sweetening? Dunno but.... https://audirvana.com/technology/

That webpage has been deleted. Any mention of "bit-perfect" seems to be scrubbed from the audirvana.com website. Hmm

 

[Tortie]

It's your life. I accept 1. @BaaM is not lying 2. the screenshot is genuine. If Damien Plisson wishes to disavow this claim, he's welcome to. My own tests validate his claim. To be safe, I didn't test against one other bit perfect player, I tested against five other bit perfect players. Audirvana implements some special sauce/sweetening which none of the other bit perfect players do. The result is euphonic, with slightly exaggerated stereo separation and a slightly higher presence. Stereo enhancement technology has existed for decades, as has subtle equalisation. The issue with stereo enhancement technology is that usually it's excessive, compromising the fundamental integrity of the music. That's not the case here.

Moving on to tests of bit perfect playback, Archimago ran some relatively serious attempts at testing on Mac OS X (and later Windows) players. In 2013, Archimago felt his tests showed Audirvana was no better or worse than Decibel:


Decibel has barely changed since 2013 (I've owned Decibel that long) while Audirvana has gone from 1.4.6 to 3.5.x. Even at that time, Audirvana was using its own drivers:


Archimago's did attempt to a diff comparison with 44.1 kHz 24 bit output into 96 kHz 24 bit input. His chart shows very small differences via DiffMaker for bit perfect playback:

There are differences in 2013. Archimago said he did not find those small differences to make an audible difference in his own use. I hope someone does run a similar test in 2021 starting from a 96 kHz 24-bit master into a 96 kHz copy.

I'm curious if anyone else perceives a difference between Audirvana playback and other bit perfect players. If there is no audible difference, I do wonder why those listeners choose Audirvana over cheaper solutions with better playlist/track management and native interfaces (native players exist for both platforms). I seriously considered Audirvana myself, as I did hear improved playback. After considerable reflection, I decided I'd rather not have any sweetening baked into my player and would rather have just bit perfect and make any changes to sound myself via AU plugins.

Equally amusing and on the other end of the spectrum is that Jplay claims playback improvement which JRiver emphatically denies. In 2012, Mitchco tested Jplay vs JRiver and found playback to be identical, justifying JRiver's hoax claims! In 2013, Mitchco redid his tests with new drivers and found them identical again.

There's some good information there for anyone who would attempt a diff test. They are not easy to get right, as Mitchco's first attempts failed, showing a difference where there was none.


In the absence of a diff test, has anyone else here carefully AB Audirvana on hires music against other bit perfect players, either on OS X or Windows?

Alex, I appreciate your posts. This week I downloaded Audirvana Origin for a trial just to see what the fuss was about. The sound from Origin was noticeably better to my ears than through Foobar2k. Indeed Origin sounds "sweeter" and more pleasing. Didn't matter if the audio track was 16bit Flac or one of my SACD rips. Origin playback introduced more air and an enveloping soundstage. Been using Foobar for 15+ years. It serves as my baseline.

My setup: I think you mentioned that you have a Music Fidelity V90. I have the original MF V-DAC from circa 2007 which has design and component similarities to the V90. My DAC is connected via Toslink from a Windows 10 box. Using a JDS Atom amp with the Sony Z7.

I wonder if the Tidal app on Windows intervenes in the sound stream to achieve an advantage over competitors.

UPDATE: My initial impressions of Audirvana may have been psychoacoustic in nature. Did a fresh install of Foobar 2.0 and was unable to discern a consistent difference in sound quality/character between that program and Audirvana that favored the latter.

For the Foobar 2.0 setup I opted for the (64bit) version, installed the SACD Decoder plugin 1.5.10. Foobar was output via KS. Audirvana with WASAPI. Both had a 6.0dB boost for the resulting converted DSD64 -> PCM 24/88.2khz streams.

Opinion: I spent the past 2 days testing Audirvana and could not see a $120 value in it. On my Windows system Foobar is faster. Much faster. Audirvana's loading of audio files into the RAM space introduces an annoying delay in playback. This is even more apparent with DSF files and SACD ISO images. The limited interface and lack of customization are also drawbacks.

 

[Julf]

So still no proper double-blind listening tests...

 

[Tortie]

So still no proper double-blind listening tests...

Turns out I was mistaken. Audirvana does not sound better than Foobar. It's also a pain to use. Audirvana seems unpolished as a piece of software and I say that as a Foobar user. I was just curious to test this program to see if my decade long cynical opinion on pay-for audio played was valid. I think Audirvana is nothing more than a cash grab. Considering the price tag it's probably fair to say that compared to its peers, Audirvana is the most brazen in this regard.

 

[Haskil]

I use Itunes, Jriver, Audirvana, Roon on my MACs - Imac, mini and Macbook pro - and the same software on PC plus Foobar and Windos Media player... by the way, I curse Roon and Audirvana which constrain every time we change computers to reconnect to deactivate the other computer...

I don't hear any sound difference between these different players when I read my files stored on an internal or external HDD connected via USB...

My ears are in excellent condition and listening to music is my main occupation which also nourishes me... and my equipment is of high quality: Divatech MC 210 speakers (former professional division of Focal), corrected by Audyssey up to 300 Hz , in a large cushioned living room with sofas, rugs, bookcases, armchairs, etc.
I checked the bit perfect of the players and settings with DTS ranges, this format does not support the slightest change, as soon as we are no longer in bit perfect it produces a dangerous noise for the tweeters...

But to tell the truth, bit perfect or not, to hear a difference from a recent Windows... you have to get up early as they say in France...

Ah also: I don't hear any difference between Roon Bridge, UpNP (Audirvana and WMP), live playback from optical output entering the DAC (Jriver) and Airplay in Airport terminal connected optically for all, Chromecast from Roon and Audirvana, like with Heos or Musicast (on the other hand not Gapless with Qobuz)... On the other hand if I use the HDMI output of my Mac mini I hear hiss coming out of the tweeters of the speakers and not when I use USB or optical. ..

Are the differences in sound quality between players really a subject or are they one of the many mirages invented by an audiophile that thrives on mysteries and magic?
On the other hand, their ergonomics is a subject... and here Foobar and JRiver are very bad students, Roon has the faults that are attributed to Apple... Audirvana is much more rational and simple... and iTunes-Music has the prize for the intelligent ergonomics of rip when reading... despite its shortcomings in formats and others...

 

[Rottmannash]

Turns out I was mistaken. Audirvana does not sound better than Foobar. It's also a pain to use. Audirvana seems unpolished as a piece of software and I say that as a Foobar user. I was just curious to test this program to see if my decade long cynical opinion on pay-for audio played was valid. I think Audirvana is nothing more than a cash grab. Considering the price tag it's probably fair to say that compared to its peers, Audirvana is the most brazen in this regard.

For many, myself included Audirvana's appeal is in its streaming ability-that's why I use it. Foobar can't do that.

 

[Tortie]

For many, myself included Audirvana's appeal is in its streaming ability-that's why I use it. Foobar can't do that.

Yes, but they charge $119 for Origin, a local media player that lacks streaming capabilities. That's the program I trialed. Foobar 32bit has some streaming capabilities with the requisite plugins installed.

 

[Tortie]

I tested Audirvana vs Roon and the last version of Audirvana 3.5.2 is AMAZING as per sound quality, musicality etc.. The difference is SO BIG that I got it in the first 2 switches between Roon and Audirvana (on the same track). I wasnt even aware of these differences (I was just testing the two to decide which one to buy) but it struck me right away (like changing a good dac like Hugo TT with an stellar dac like Dave).
So for sound quality alone (on the same gear) Audirvana is far superior to Roon or direct streaming from Tidal (masters or hifi via Audirvana still sound better than directly from Tidal). Much more dynamic and musical. Roon sounds flat by comparison

This comment is a perfect example of spam. With its hyperbole it reads like a scripted testimonial. The account and the comment were made on the same day. This was the only comment from that account and the user was not active on this website since that day. Very good chance it's a sock puppet account from the developer or his associates.

 

[McGillroy]

Did anybody indeed do measurements on any of these players? If so please point me to them. Thank you!

 

[Julf]

For many, myself included Audirvana's appeal is in its streaming ability-that's why I use it. Foobar can't do that.

Isn't there a lot of different (free) programs that all do that?

 

[Julf]

This comment is a perfect example of spam. With its hyperbole it reads like a scripted testimonial. The account and the comment were made on the same day. This was the only comment from that account and the user was not active on this website since that day. Very good chance it's a sock puppet account from the developer or his associates.

And with the usual 2-3 letters followed by 3-4 digits username...

 

[MrSoul4470]

For many, myself included Audirvana's appeal is in its streaming ability-that's why I use it. Foobar can't do that.

Since when Foobar can't be used for streaming? I've been using it for many years with the upnp plugin. I've tried many media server softwares. Nothing beats Foobar in how simple yet versatile and flexible it is.

 

[Keith_W]

I wasn't aware that Foobar can be used for streaming. Does it have Tidal integration? Or do you use it as a DLNA endpoint, like JRiver?

Is it possible to use Tidal's app on a smartphone/tablet and send audio to Foobar?

(EDIT): I am using BubbleUPNP to stream Tidal to JRiver. I don't like doing this, because BubbleUPNP is rather ugly compared to Tidal's own app. But since I can't use Tidal's app to stream to JRiver, this is what I am stuck with!

 

[Rottmannash]

Isn't there a lot of different (free) programs that all do that?

I don't know of any. Qobuz has its web app, Tidal does as well I believe. Not sure about other streaming services. If there are free programs that stream various services I'd like to know about them. Audirvana isn't exactly free.

 

[Julf]

I

I don't know of any. Qobuz has its web app, Tidal does as well I believe. Not sure about other streaming services. If there are free programs that stream various services I'd like to know about them. Audirvana isn't exactly free.

I use squeezelite (and run Logiteh Media Server on a Raspberry Pi), both free and open source They do Spotify and Deezer just fine. If you do a google, there are literally hundreds of streaming players - the problem is that some streaming services are being rather proprietary.