![]() ![]() Like ingadc - would love a ‘switch’ to make it sound the same as 3.5. Thats what has been said generally in the majority of the comments from the start and not just this thread.ĭreading I will be forced onto a new product that doesn’t sound the same as the current one - that would be a real problem. The thoughts of having to go to a soundstage that sounds like it produces a sound that is less high freq intensive, seems like a step back to me. So coming back to Audirvana - I’m not doing any upsampling (i’m feeding from Qobuz by USB into a Chord DAC) as I don’t like the change in sound that results from this (the upsampling). So many systems are just incapable of producing this. Its bass is tighter and deeper, the mid is open and natural and the treble is transparent and extended. I will subscribe for sure, to keep Audirvana going. In terms of sound quality, Audirvana Studio is the winner. I have about 168.000 Local audio files in FLAC+Hi-Res+ALAC & some. It is not that I don't enjoy the two other Players/Streamers, Audirvana is just better. I have Roon+AS & JRiver & Audirvana Studio wins regarding audio quality IMHO. For internet streaming I’ll prefer Spotify by far. Audirvana Studio plays anything you throw at it, that is nice, the UI is great, functionality is almost perfect. The streaming service integration, web radios and podcast are not appealing features for me. as the competent design takes care of that. I was shocked at how much better Origin sounded than 3.5 when playing back hi res files stored on my SSD. I had been using Audirvana 3.5, and then I downloaded a trial version of Origin to compare sound quality. Yes, having a competently designed, transparent DAC helps, but I wouldn't concern myself with clock speeds, jitter, etc. I’m using Audirvana Origin, which has the same sound quality as Studio but fewer features. I mainly use Audirvana for streaming local files. While there may be some subtle differences in the sound quality due to their various processing engines, they will be just that when the processing is kept to an absolute minimum. I am very satisfied with the sound quality overall, Studio equal or better than 3.5. I think the Studio is directed more toward non current users. Bugs are limited to the extent that 99 of the time I can just enjoy the music. If you are up close to a big harpsichord or a pipe organ there is so much detail and very high frequency harmonics. Just moved from Audirvana 3.5 to Studio 1.8.1 (both Mac Mini M1). I listened to so many so called HI-fi systems and speakers before I settled on what I have and so many of them are high frequency challenged! They seem to be afraid to make classical and early music sound like it really is - almost like people have become offended by real sound and all the detail and roughness in it. It’s more or less a set and forget but one of the things I need is to enhance the 177 hz mid and the 6Khz upper to get close to the sound I want. Dreading it as I generally like the sound I’m getting although I find that I need to use the free SONEQ to adapt my sytem to get the sound I want in my room. Im a 3.5 user and use it on Mac Catalina - its an old mac and will need replaced soon. Find the perfect balance with our tool set to monitor and fine tune your system. I have been following the sound quality / soundstage threads ever since Studio came out. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |