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

[Vapor9]

well, i've seen some option about that but i'm not interested, the itune library is not having the flac's... and i'm not using it anymore, it's deprecated.
but that would solve (if it would) only the one aspect. all is bad with this software on pc (except the sound). half hour ago i find it having 20% load on cpu doing nothing! it hang, the browsing, the menus and options are completely moronic. i am again amazed how much crap the audiophile world is willing to pay for.

I completely agree, the audiophile world is full of crap, especially concerning software. I imagine I'll soon have to abandon audirvana as they are pushing towards a rental model and will probably eliminate the integrated mode (or Apple will change something and it will not no longer support the current version of audirvana and they'll refuse to upgrade). As for flac, I convert any flac to ALAC (apple's lossless format) and I am unable to tell a difference. My system is highly resolving and I am certainly able to tell the difference between audirvana software and the other 'bit perfect' players.

 

[Julf]

As for flac, I convert any flac to ALAC (apple's lossless format) and I am unable to tell a difference.

Well, yes, it is exactly the same audio data - lossless is lossless.

 

[MediumRare]

As an owner of an RME ADI-2 DAC I have performed RME's bit perfect tests using their supplied test files at various bit depths/sample rates on Qobuz + Roon (with Roon's DSP deactivated). These tests passed on all sample files. I've not gotten around to doing these tests with other configurations/players.

Would such a test be adequate to settle this debate re. Audirvana an other setups or am I missing something? This is of course ignoring adding DSP into the chain.

I guess it would also be possible to use loopback to record the pre-analogue (digital) output from the DAC and do a null test on the before/original and after/recorded files?

I may be missing something obvious here in the methodology but I would think this could alleviate the need for ABX comparisions?

Exactly. Yes, please just do a loopback using WASAPI etc. and then using Audirvana and REW can show if there is a change in the FR, distortion or phase that could prove and explain any difference, IF there is one.

 

[liviu_c]

Exactly. Yes, please just do a loopback using WASAPI etc. and then using Audirvana and REW can show if there is a change in the FR, distortion or phase that could prove and explain any difference, IF there is one.

...But using ASIO. WASAPI is lower quality - might be enough to obscure the "edge" of the Audirvana.
And please believe us - there is(!) a difference. We are not speaking about it after hearing someone discussing it but the other way around - the last week I was visiting a completely stranger guy to buy a Chord Qutest from him and I saw that he was using Audirvana, asking why... we were stuck with this software from the same reason. We were aware about it from Paul McGowan - but he recommended a few (hifi software), and after testing each one we choose the same.
If I play WASAPI Audirvana it sound like ASIO on every other player: each sound become more compact, loose the power, and his echo / trace in the background (when playing and when finishing) is cut earlier, does not go for such low intensity.
And all this is with all enhancement options off (no dsp and no upsampling) - earlier i thought is upsampling, but nope, they did said they do "autre chose" than upsampling.

 

[Julf]

And please believe us - there is(!) a difference.

Uh uh...

We were aware about it from Paul McGowan

I see. That explains a lot.

 

[Jimbob54]

...But using ASIO. WASAPI is lower quality - might be enough to obscure the "edge" of the Audirvana.
And please believe us - there is(!) a difference. We are not speaking about it after hearing someone discussing it but the other way around - the last week I was visiting a completely stranger guy to buy a Chord Qutest from him and I saw that he was using Audirvana, asking why... we were stuck with this software from the same reason. We were aware about it from Paul McGowan - but he recommended a few (hifi software), and after testing each one we choose the same.
If I play WASAPI Audirvana it sound like ASIO on every other player: each sound become more compact, loose the power, and his echo / trace in the background (when playing and when finishing) is cut earlier, does not go for such low intensity.
And all this is with all enhancement options off (no dsp and no upsampling) - earlier i thought is upsampling, but nope, they did said they do "autre chose" than upsampling. View attachment 164110

Your reasoning for saying WASAPI is inferior?

 

[amper42]

well, i've seen some option about that but i'm not interested, the itune library is not having the flac's... and i'm not using it anymore, it's deprecated.
but that would solve (if it would) only the one aspect. all is bad with this software on pc (except the sound). half hour ago i find it having 20% load on cpu doing nothing! it hang, the browsing, the menus and options are completely moronic. i am again amazed how much pc-related non-quality the audiophile world is willing to accept and pay for.

I run Audirvana on the MacBook Pro. It feeds an RPi4 (Moode) via UPnP out to the RME ADI-2 to Purifi amp to Revel F328Be. It sounds absolutely great. I don't turn on any of the processing options in Audirvana. I just run a bit for bit signal out to the RPi4. All of my ripped CD's are in AIFF format which is an exact bit copy with no compression. I have A/B'd the sound by connecting the MBP directly to the RME ADI-2 and also to playing the original CD from my Denon player excluding Audirvana all together. Each of these different configurations sound the same to me, so I opt for the ease of use offered by Wifi via UPnP with Audirvana over inserting/ejecting each CD. This allows me to pick my favorite tracks from each CD and create playlists. It's so cool that my two Denon CD players are not getting much use.

Audirvana supports the automatic catalog of my music in several ways. I have it automatically update my iTunes library of AIFF rips and I have it also automatically catalog my HDTracks downloads in another folder plus Band Camp purchases in another folder. Audirvana can update it's music library from any place on the hard drive. It's amazingly flexible and easy to configure.

If I had an option of making one improvement to Audirvana it would be to allow the selection of different RPi4's for playback rather than have to quit the application and then select a new source. Not a big deal but it would be nice to switch sources without a restart of the application.

 

[MediumRare]

Uh uh...



I see. That explains a lot.

Given the the whole point of this thread is to objectively measure IF there is a difference, you might consider supporting that rather than dismissing the effort out of hand.

The reference to any subjective justification or BS Audio is irrelevant.

 

[liviu_c]

Your reasoning for saying WASAPI is inferior?

1. Because what I found out about how it's working form articles like this

The difference between the ASIO, WDM and MME drivers | Sweetwater

In this article we will describe the different types of audio drivers used on Windows, and when and why to use one over the other. Click here to learn more!

www.sweetwater.com

2. While hearing a clear difference, a difference just described above.
3. And since you asked, i will test asio vs wasapi in other player than audirvana.
* well, yes, you might have a point: on MusicBee I cannot say for sure that I hear differences between WASAPI and ASIO. That would conclude that Audirvana is doing "outre chose" only for ASIO output. (or the difference might become audible on systems more revealing than mine)
** and well again, on a different track, i'm not so sure anymore that they sound identical (on MusicBee, ASIO vs WASAPI). But also I would say that the difference (if there really is) is hard to catch it.

 

[jhwalker]

1. Because what I found out about how it's working form articles like this

The difference between the ASIO, WDM and MME drivers | Sweetwater

In this article we will describe the different types of audio drivers used on Windows, and when and why to use one over the other. Click here to learn more!

www.sweetwater.com

2. While hearing a clear difference, a difference just described above.
3. And since you asked, i will test asio vs wasapi in other player than audirvana.

While I absolutely HATE to (I’m an objectivist all the way), I agree Audirvana just sounds “better”.

It’s irritating

 

[Julf]

1. Because what I found out about how it's working form articles like this

You do realize that that article pretty much only talks about latency (very important in a live / recording situation, but irrelevant for listening)?

 

[Julf]

Given the the whole point of this thread is to objectively measure IF there is a difference, you might consider supporting that rather than dismissing the effort out of hand.

I am all for objective measurements, but claims of audible differences without any evidence are a different story.

The reference to any subjective justification or BS Audio is irrelevant.

The reference to other forums is definitely irrelevant.

 

[Julf]

While I absolutely HATE to (I’m an objectivist all the way), I agree Audirvana just sounds “better”.

Have you tried to verify that perception in any objective way?

 

[Julf]

All of my ripped CD's are in AIFF format which is an exact bit copy with no compression.

All lossless copies, compressed or not, are of course also contain exactly the same information.

 

[Jimbob54]

...But using ASIO. WASAPI is lower quality - might be enough to obscure the "edge" of the Audirvana.
And please believe us - there is(!) a difference. We are not speaking about it after hearing someone discussing it but the other way around - the last week I was visiting a completely stranger guy to buy a Chord Qutest from him and I saw that he was using Audirvana, asking why... we were stuck with this software from the same reason. We were aware about it from Paul McGowan - but he recommended a few (hifi software), and after testing each one we choose the same.
If I play WASAPI Audirvana it sound like ASIO on every other player: each sound become more compact, loose the power, and his echo / trace in the background (when playing and when finishing) is cut earlier, does not go for such low intensity.
And all this is with all enhancement options off (no dsp and no upsampling) - earlier i thought is upsampling, but nope, they did said they do "autre chose" than upsampling. View attachment 164110

PS, what do you (or they) mean by autre chose?

 

[liviu_c]

PS, what do you (or they) mean by autre chose?

This is exactly how I arrived on this forum - searching what the hell are they doing with the signal.
Because they were saying that, in french, to a customer and I was quoting them.
So, they did say that they are doing "other stuff" with the sound apart from upscaling but not what.
And I want to know if it's a "legitimate" improvement, or an mumbo-jumbo artificial improvement of the sound / signal. I guess I would prefer to be the latter - in order to let this player go with all his absurdities (the PC version at least).

 

[Jimbob54]

This is exactly how I arrived on this forum - searching what the hell are they doing with the signal.
Because they were saying that, in french, to a customer and I was quoting them.
So, they did say that they are doing "other stuff" with the sound apart from upscaling but not what.
And I want to know if it's a "legitimate" improvement, or an mumbo-jumbo artificial improvement of the sound / signal. I guess I would prefer to be the latter - in order to let this player go with all his absurdities (the PC version at least).

This isn't the first time I've heard that said. It wasn't on a customer forum was it. Its "bit perfect" but they do "other stuff".

Suggest you get them to clarify the "other stuff".

 

[liviu_c]

This isn't the first time I've heard that said. It wasn't on a customer forum was it. Its "bit perfect" but they do "other stuff".

Suggest you get them to clarify the "other stuff".

I would ask them but:
1. I am not a paying customer;
2. I am certain that they would not say for three possible reasons:
a. they do some "unholy" processing;
b. or it's "holy" but so debatable in HiFi world that they prefer not to;
c. or just to protect their "high ground" / "secret sauce".
But since talking to you I find out that this difference is only for ASIO output, and that is not making much sense (unless they can apply "the sauce" only to ASIO output for some reasons). So can be an "accident"?! For that type of output maybe are some lines of code that unintentional create this?! Everything else about this app - on windows version - is unprofessional (to say the least) so... why not?

 

[krabapple]

well, for me is problem solved: all asio players have the same sound with dsp off.
and audirvana is doing oversampling - they were saying it to customer, as seen - and the audirvana process in my pc take 10 to 20 % of the processor on idle (starcraft II is not taking that much under load with zerg!)
oversampling is whole another issue - if it's ok or not, how it's ok to be done, how it's not.
* i except from this the foobar witch is too much for my patience, i did not find a way to be sure that the sound output is asio and not wasapi or smth else - just a checkbox that asapi is enabled and not enforce using is not enough... (and the sound quality from foobar is... meh - this being an engineering term for it)
** wait... is not solved. the upsampling is deactivated, they admit to do "something else" with the signal... what are they doing with it?!

This is a muddle of nonsensical inferences.

for example... Foobar has no intrinsic 'sound quality'. You choose what output you want (Direct, WASAPI, etc) and you either leave all DSP off or turn what you like on. Some DSP will make audible changes. Going through the Windows mixer could cause audile changes depending on how its parameters are set. WASAPI in foobar will be the same as WASAPI in another player. Ditto ASIO. And ASIO and WASAPI will sound the same too. Unless you broke something or your system for some reason doesn't support one or the other.

And proper upsampling/oversampling don't have the audible effects you claim.

Either way, unless you compare your outputs carefully level matched, and double-blind, OR, you can show measured output differences that would indicate audibility, your claims have no standing at all on an audio science forum.

Right now the most likely explanations for what you hear are (in no particular order)
1) some audible DSP effect is active in one player path and not the other
2) outputs are same except one is louder than the other (i.e., not level matched)
3) imaginary result due to sighted bias

 

[liviu_c]

This is a muddle of nonsensical inferences.

for example... Foobar has no intrinsic 'sound quality'. You choose what output you want (Direct, WASAPI, etc) and you either leave all DSP off or turn what you like on. Some DSP will make audible changes. Going through the Windows mixer could cause audile changes depending on how its parameters are set. WASAPI in foobar will be the same as WASAPI in another player. Ditto ASIO. And ASIO and WASAPI will sound the same too. Unless you broke something or your system for some reason doesn't support one or the other.

And proper upsampling/oversampling don't have the audible effects you claim.

Either way, unless you compare your outputs carefully level matched, and double-blind, OR, you can show measured output differences that would indicate audibility, your claims have no standing at all on an audio science forum.

Right now the most likely explanations for what you hear are (in no particular order)
1) some audible DSP effect is active in one player path and not the other
2) outputs are same except one is louder than the other (i.e., not level matched)
3) imaginary result due to sighted bias

since that point i've made some adjustments - because that's how science work: by constantly adjusting the theory to comply with the facts (not dismissing the facts because they don't fit the theory). and the title being 'audible%', well... here i am.
and yes, i agree that should be identical (the sound). (in a perfect world where all devs know their job and do their job perfectly. and pm's. and the testers. and the bosses. etc.)
long story short, my latest paradigm is that audirvana sound different only on ASIO output and it would be nice to find out why.
and something more, exactly about this topic:

Subjective comparison of Software Music Player

A comparison of music players on windows, linux, android I have done. Note: Most of these software are free so you can try and check for yourself. This is only relating to USB dac connected to PC directly and using a general asio/uac2 driver. If you have a network streamer or signal regenerator/r...

audiophilestyle.com

this guy describe preeety much what i also hear (before(!) reading his post), except hysolid - only sites / install i've found are more likely malware than a player.