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

[VintageFlanker]

No differences between Roon/Audirvana/Clementine/Swinsian to me.
I remember asking Audirvana if there were things that could change the sound, it looks like they're chosing to maintain an aura of mystery.

In english:

Seems pretty clear to me: that's BS.

Or... what they're claiming would be some kind of worrying. Do we have to understand the signal won't be transparent? That can't be a good thing in any way.

Still waiting for a proper DBT between Roon, Foobar and Audirvana.

On the UI/features part tho, Roon destroys Audirvana. That's enough for me, because both sound the same.

Les mecs sont des génies, ils réinventent le bitperfect... Encore plus bitperfect que les autres. Le "Omo qui lave plus blanc que blanc"!

 

[BaaM]

I agree with that.
I was just curious to know their official position on the subject because it is usually the customers who claim that the software sounds better, not the company itself ^_^"

 

[VintageFlanker]

it is usually THEIR customers who argue that the software sounds better ^_^

Of course. Audiophilism is an easy to understand religion. The company/salesman claim something (big). One or two customers believe it (for some reason). Then, it spreads on forums etc. Several months/years later, the thing became a truth. Audirvana sounding better than Roon or anything else, is a common belief (though unproven to date). And some people are still spreading this misinformation:

So for sound quality alone (on the same gear) Audirvana is far superior to Roon

So far, @fl5214 is probably a troll: the alias, the fact he just registered, posted one unic (polemic) message and disappeared...

 

[hapnermw]

Unless you want to apply EQ with something like Morhpit.

It's interesting, possibly it is my old ears; but, every digital headphone EQ I've tried has done nothing but degrade the music.

I happen to use Focal Utopia's and they sound best when the DAC is fed the exact bits.

 

[Julf]

It's interesting, possibly it is my old ears; but, every digital headphone EQ I've tried has done nothing but degrade the music.

I happen to use Focal Utopia's and they sound best when the DAC is fed the exact bits.

How have you tested? Double blind?

 

[pma]

How have you tested? Double blind?

How would you test EQ vs. flat in a DBT? You will immediately recognize the EQ sample compared to the flat one so getting 100% success.

 

[Berwhale]

How would you test EQ vs. flat in a DBT? You will immediately recognize the EQ sample compared to the flat one so getting 100% success.

Use music and recordings that the listener is unfamiliar with.

 

[Julf]

How would you test EQ vs. flat in a DBT? You will immediately recognize the EQ sample compared to the flat one so getting 100% success.

Nobody doubts EQ can be audible. I was addressing the "they sound best when the DAC is fed the exact bits" part.

 

[hapnermw]

How have you tested? Double blind?

I've tested several. Some with my music and some with online with/without examples. To my ears they all had exaggerated base and lacked midrange/highs. This was not subtle. Clearly, whatever curve they are EQ'ing to does not fit the response of my ears. The headphone manufacturers seem to have a better handle on EQ for their products.

I also feel that the EQ process, even if it used a curve I liked, is likely to impact audio quality. I have no proof of this; however, the folks providing the EQ solutions don't provide any measurements to verify that their convolutions don't add frequency/phase distortion.

The only EQ that I've found to be beneficial is the loudness switch on the Topping NX4 when used with a pair of iSine20s. I'm guessing this is analog EQ.

 

[Julf]

I've tested several. Some with my music and some with online with/without examples. To my ears they all had exaggerated base and lacked midrange/highs. This was not subtle. Clearly, whatever curve they are EQ'ing to does not fit the response of my ears. The headphone manufacturers seem to have a better handle on EQ for their products.

So you haven't tried with a flat curve?

I also feel that the EQ process, even if it used a curve I liked, is likely to impact audio quality. I have no proof of this; however, the folks providing the EQ solutions don't provide any measurements to verify that their convolutions don't add frequency/phase distortion.

Have you seen any measurements (or even better double blind tests) that show they do add audible distortion?

The only EQ that I've found to be beneficial is the loudness switch on the Topping NX4 when used with a pair of iSine20s. I'm guessing this is analog EQ.

Lots of guessing here. Science does contain a fair bit of guessing, but always followed by verification.

 

[hapnermw]

So you haven't tried with a flat curve?



Have you seen any measurements (or even better double blind tests) that show they do add audible distortion?



Lots of guessing here. Science does contain a fair bit of guessing, but always followed by verification.

My point was that the providers of headphone EQ products do not provide measurements of their products. This is a fact.

In addition, that I personally tested several of these products with my specific headphones and ears and found that I did not like the result. The difference between with and without EQ was clearly audible in every case. This is a fact.

 

[laurelkurt]

I gotta say, this thread got suspiciously subjective compared to the rest of this site. Can anybody here actually produce evidence of differences between players?

And preferably excluding the effects of resampling, that are dependent on the quality of algorithms and such. Just a plain example of two players playing the same 44.1khz/16bit file without any DSP running, sounding different.

Consistently, when I listen to 16/44 files on Qobuz, either through WASAPI (exclusive) or ASIO modes, my DAC displays: PCM 16BITS (44kHz), But the BITS constantly flips between 16 & 24. Likewise the BITRATE display flips between 1411 & 2116 kbps. But, when I run Qobuz through Audirvana it never happens. It stays at 16. This never happens with Tidal's exclusive mode, with or without Audirvana.

I must admit I can't hear any difference when this happens, but it sure bugs the hell out of me. So I say Audirvana is definitely doing something to alter the stream from Qobuz desktop app and it's displayed on my DAC. I posted a complaint on Qobuz' Facebook group page but nobody seemed to care or take the bait.

 

[laurelkurt]

I see on various forums that different music players have different SQ. A hardware manufacturer told me the same thing just last week. And personally, I think I hear a benefit to Audirvana. And yet, bits are bits, right?

So, @amirm , please save us from this mystery: Do these players deliver different bits or clock speeds or jitter or "musical ether" to a DAC via USB? Does it matter if you have "good" DAC?

This is my honest subjetive opinion. I don't know if these players do something to the bits with default config.

* Roon and Volumio sounds the same. I think both are bitperfect.
* Audirvana try to enhance the music but sounds boomy on my system.
* Daphile sounds little bit harsh (and weak?)

Is the another player with Tidal support?

I will try to record all when my Adi2 Pro FS arrive.

This is my honest subjetive opinion. I don't know if these players do something to the bits with default config.

* Roon and Volumio sounds the same. I think both are bitperfect.
* Audirvana try to enhance the music but sounds boomy on my system.
* Daphile sounds little bit harsh (and weak?)

Is the another player with Tidal support?

I will try to record all when my Adi2 Pro FS arrive.

Aren't Tidal desktop or Qobuz desktop apps players in their own rite?

 

[krabapple]

Agreed - as I said, I don't like it, because it shouldn't be that way.

And I think even non-trained listeners s/b able to hear the difference between Foobar and Audirvana, for example - it's pretty blatant.

Nonsense. And I posit that 99.9% of the differences reported here are not intrinsic to the software or platforms. They are differences in settings, or they are simply cognitive/perceptual bias products that would be revealed as such in a proper blind comparison.

 

[Ratatoskr]

Consistently, when I listen to 16/44 files on Qobuz, either through WASAPI (exclusive) or ASIO modes, my DAC displays: PCM 16BITS (44kHz), But the BITS constantly flips between 16 & 24. Likewise the BITRATE display flips between 1411 & 2116 kbps. But, when I run Qobuz through Audirvana it never happens. It stays at 16. This never happens with Tidal's exclusive mode, with or without Audirvana.

I must admit I can't hear any difference when this happens, but it sure bugs the hell out of me. So I say Audirvana is definitely doing something to alter the stream from Qobuz desktop app and it's displayed on my DAC. I posted a complaint on Qobuz' Facebook group page but nobody seemed to care or take the bait.

That is probably just Audirvana being stable. The Qobuz app has been notoriously buggy the past few years particularly on Windows. They have worked hard to improve it but I still get occasional glitches, stutters or just plain distortion and have to restart. I started using Audirvana because it is consistently stable streaming Qobuz. I can live with the lack of metadata compared to Qobuz. Roon is very nice, just crazy expensive for my needs.

 

[laurelkurt]

That is probably just Audirvana being stable. The Qobuz app has been notoriously buggy the past few years particularly on Windows. They have worked hard to improve it but I still get occasional glitches, stutters or just plain distortion and have to restart. I started using Audirvana because it is consistently stable streaming Qobuz. I can live with the lack of metadata compared to Qobuz. Roon is very nice, just crazy expensive for my needs.

I also notice that Qubuz often displays wrong bit/sampling info. If I restart the song it may or may not correct itself. I'm on Windows. Tidal seems more stable at least in telling you what it's playing, but it often reverses L & R. (?) You'd think that they should be able get these things right. Maybe because I'm running them on wi-fi? I don't want to have to drill a hole through to the basement just to run Ethernet from the router just to find out it makes no difference.

 

[Ratatoskr]

Well I would rather have a hardwired connection than WiFi. Maybe you are having latency issues? If the computer you are playing from is in your basement connected by WiFi try importing an album from Qobuz and playing it from your hard disc rather than streaming over WiFi see if you get the same errors.

 

[Patrick1958]

I also notice that Qubuz often displays wrong bit/sampling info. If I restart the song it may or may not correct itself. I'm on Windows. Tidal seems more stable at least in telling you what it's playing, but it often reverses L & R. (?) You'd think that they should be able get these things right. Maybe because I'm running them on wi-fi? I don't want to have to drill a hole through to the basement just to run Ethernet from the router just to find out it makes no difference.

No need to drill a hole, i'm sure you have electricity in your basement, why not using powerlines?

 

[Ratatoskr]

Better to stay with WiFi than wasting money on powerline adapters, which come with their own problems. Paying an electrician to snake ethernet through the wall to basement could be money well spent.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

No need to drill a hole, i'm sure you have electricity in your basement, why not using powerlines?

MoCA is better than powerline ethernet, if you have cable/coax accessible.

Better to stay with WiFi than wasting money on powerline adapters, which come with their own problems. Paying an electrician to snake ethernet through the wall to basement could be money well spent.

Amen.