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

[amper42]

Audirvana has preference options that are not the default setting which could alter sound. For instance Apple Audio Unit filters can be applied or forced upsampling can be active and audio leveling is also an option. If the user never selects these options then the sound will not be altered.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Maybe the problem here is that you cannot read French.
If the customer service screenshot is not a forgery, they clearly say that they "improve" the sound quality with "other stuff", different than what other free players do.
Alec Kinnear is trying to explain this but you don't want to understand.
He did not make any measure but he believes that he heard a difference which would be justified by what Audirvana customer service is saying.

Well, reading French does not make extraordinary claims come true...

 

[Rickstan]

Yes, this is an interesting one...trust your ears or accept the data. I go back and forth a lot between JRiver and Audirvana. No question: I prefer JRMC for ripping, cataloguing, curating and so forth and I like the kinda basic Windows-inspired GUI. No, I don't do TV, video, streaming, radio or any of that...just ripping CDs and playing them (70,000+ files). Scientific objectivity, by definition, regards subjectivity with a healthy level of distrust even though we humans are prone to trusting things like intuition. As far as Audirvana goes, if I want to kick back and play an album through (no, I don't use playlists either, so old school I guess), I just like the way it sounds out of the box. Not scientific, no testing etc. But I would love to see someone come up with something more conclusive than a whole bunch of people (i.e. more than just me and more than a few) saying they 'like' or 'prefer' some such sound. And, no interest in subscribing to Audirvana all the while 3.5.45 works.

 

[Spider]

I am a newbie, so forgive me if I sound stupid.
Is there any difference in Audio Quality between AIMP4, MusicBee against Roon & Audirvana when you use WASAPI on all players?, and yes I have them all on my Notebook & then some.

 

[Jimbob54]

I am a newbie, so forgive me if I sound stupid.
Is there any difference in Audio Quality between AIMP4, MusicBee against Roon & Audirvana when you use WASAPI on all players?, and yes I have them all on my Notebook & then some.

Assuming you have nothing in settings / EQ to get it to do something other than straight playback then there shoudnt be. Replay gain or similar might mean some play at different levels so may be different in that regard.

 

[Frgirard]

I am a newbie, so forgive me if I sound stupid.
Is there any difference in Audio Quality between AIMP4, MusicBee against Roon & Audirvana when you use WASAPI on all players?, and yes I have them all on my Notebook & then some.

The sound of the player is a myth and an audiophile reflex.

 

[CMB]

For me the difference vomes mainly from being able to run Dirac Studio on Audirvana through an AU plugin. Not sure if this work as easely on other players as well.

 

[liviu_c]

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?

i am looking for what audirvana is doing, why it has a clearer sound than any asio player.
it's obvious not a feeling.
after a week of testing i've come to almost hate audirvana player since EVERYTHING (except sound) about the player is crap. the library management, the options, the selling method...
i wish to be able to have the same sound and not use that player and i am curious if the clarity is natural (is how it supposed to sound) or is some artificial (a alteration of the "real" sound).
and about a good dac - of course it matter, but only if you have also the speakers good enough to show the differences (and the amplifier decent enough).

 

[Julf]

it's obvious not a feeling.

Oh?

 

[liviu_c]

I am a newbie, so forgive me if I sound stupid.
Is there any difference in Audio Quality between AIMP4, MusicBee against Roon & Audirvana when you use WASAPI on all players?, and yes I have them all on my Notebook & then some.

man, i do not play wasapi, but i can tell you that for asio it is and it's something strange: all the players on asio sound similar enough that with my system and my ears i cannot make a difference but audirvana has a way better clarity.
it's a week since i'm searching a asio pc player to replace audirvana - with the same sound quality - and i am not finding one. (the library management and software options are so crap that i refuse to pay such low quality product, even with that amazing sound)
* i have no idea about rune since a credit card is required for trial version - a thing that i find unacceptable.

 

[Jimbob54]

I think this discussion needs to move beyond anecdote/ observation. It cant be impossible to do some meaningful blinded A/B testing of standard files but assuming the output levels going to the DAC are the same and all DSP is off, I am struggling to see how a software player can add (or detract) from SQ in this day and age. Especially if the Windows audio stack is bypassed.

 

[Veri]

I am struggling to see how a software player can add (or detract) from SQ in this day and age. Especially if the Windows audio stack is bypassed.

Realistically, it can't.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Personally I've never heard any differences, (and I have subjectivist credentials), provided the player is outputting "bit perfect" sound; even WASAPI vs. ASIO vs. Direct Sound has made no audible difference for me. From time to time I've heard "burps" and short dropouts but I couldn't fairly attribute these to the player.

Of course if DSP of any sort is used, this is likely to be make a difference in sound the might be attributed to the player. At the moment I'm using MathAudio Room EQ with Foobar2000 and that certainly makes a difference vs. "bit perfect".

 

[Wicky]

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?

 

[liviu_c]

I think this discussion needs to move beyond anecdote/ observation. It cant be impossible to do some meaningful blinded A/B testing of standard files but assuming the output levels going to the DAC are the same and all DSP is off, I am struggling to see how a software player can add (or detract) from SQ in this day and age. Especially if the Windows audio stack is bypassed.

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?!

 

[Veri]

and the sound quality from foobar is... meh - this being an engineering term for it

I assure you, I have never heard of this engineering term

 

[Apesbrain]

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
... (and the sound quality from foobar is... meh - this being an engineering term for it)

Preferences > Playback > Output > Select ASIO device. Couldn't be more sure. Via ASIO, a track played via foobar2000 will sound the same as any other ASIO player.

 

[liviu_c]

Preferences > Playback > Output > Select ASIO device. Couldn't be more sure. Via ASIO, a track played via foobar2000 will sound the same as any other ASIO player.

thx.
(and i see that i was already having that done.)
yes, sound like any other - except audirvana who's making stuff under the hood (at least upsampling).

 

[Vapor9]

i am looking for what audirvana is doing, why it has a clearer sound than any asio player.
it's obvious not a feeling.
after a week of testing i've come to almost hate audirvana player since EVERYTHING (except sound) about the player is crap. the library management, the options, the selling method...
i wish to be able to have the same sound and not use that player and i am curious if the clarity is natural (is how it supposed to sound) or is some artificial (a alteration of the "real" sound).
and about a good dac - of course it matter, but only if you have also the speakers good enough to show the differences (and the amplifier decent enough).
* yeah, i've find out, is supersampling: is what most of the dac's are doing. and some other very expensive hi-end devices. but yeah, if you're doing it at source level... might be even "better", if the algorithms are ok.

If you're running on OSX, you can run in integrated mode. This allows for audirvana sound without using their music management. It just hooks into your iTunes library. I would probably not use it without this feature. I don't know if windows has this ability.

 

[liviu_c]

If you're running on OSX, you can run in integrated mode. This allows for audirvana sound without using their music management. It just hooks into your iTunes library. I would probably not use it without this feature. I don't know if windows has this ability.

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.