Audirvana Plus – Quick Review

Audirvana takes some tweaking. The Computer Audiophile Software forum has a ton of advice and the owner of Audirvana advises on a lot of tech issues and answers questions over there. I have not been over there in a few months, but suspect he stills on there.

There's certainly better programs than it, but for the price and the fact it would play DSD files 4 years ago was a huge bonus for me. If I cared enough about digital music I would be using JRiver. After using the trial version I loved it. But I don't play much digital anymore.

 

I have both A+ and Fidelia Advanced. Sonically, I think Fidelia sounds a little more organic and very open in a 'tubey' kinda way, while A+ seems just slightly colder. They're both very good, and A+ is clearly more popular...I just think Fidelia is pretty damn good. The first player I compared iTunes with was sbooth's Play, and even that was a notable improvement.

A few audionuts I know swear to me that Amarra is nothing short of a revelation, but I still haven't heard it....

 

Thanks for the other options!

First of all, A+ is a really terrible name. I can't find it via Internet searches!

So I briefly checked out Amarra next. As far as I can tell, the $49.99 version (Amarra HiFi) relies heavily on iTunes. Perhaps it's just a "shell" for iTunes? Maybe the next version up, Amarra 3.0, is the one everyone raves about. But it sells for $189.99 ... for that price, it better be damn wonderful!

Fidelia, on the other hand ... I was impressed by the comprehensive and thoughtfully formatted PDF user guide, and the ability to download and read through it without buying the product. That's what I like to see - developers who are not afraid of showing off every last feature they designed into the product.

I see that the standard version is only $19.99. But the "killer feature" of direct interaction with Apple hardware is a $49.99 add-on. Ouch! That total of $69.98 puts it nearly the same price as Audirvana's paid version. And if I add-on the advanced features ("FHX") to optimize for headphone listening (which is 99% of the way I'd be critically listening on my Macbook Air), that's another $49.99!

However, since I've been so disappointed in Audirvana's UI, I am going to take advantage of Fidelia's 15 day free trial. If it impresses me enough, then I'll likely start heading down the path that will likely ultimately result in my $119.97 investment in Fidelia Advanced + FHX.

My first exposure to the playlist feature is encouraging. I added my entire "Music" folder, which included a range of files from 96/24 ALAC, to 44.1/16 FLAC, to 256kbps MP3. It took several minutes to load everything, but once it was loaded, all 2,363 tracks remain in the playlist (actually, they call this the "Library") even after a restart of the app. And the restart of the app takes just a couple of seconds! WOOHOO! Way better than waiting for Audirvana to reload the playlist every time it launches.

A few minor quibbles so far:

• If I am playing a track and pause it, then close and restart the app, hitting play starts with the first track in the playlist. (Expected/preferred behavior would be to remember the last track I was playing when I shut down the app.)
• It's great that "MP3" (or "FLAC" or whatever) is displayed on the far right side, but it would be nice if mousing over, right-clicking, or double-clicking that text would tell me the bitrate or other information about the track. (I see that playing a "FLAC" file displays as "FLAC 16bit" but I'd also want to know the frequency as well.)
  
• Likewise for tracks in the Library. I should be able to right-click and view properties or more information.
• Would be helpful if more columns could be added to the Library list view (e.g., year, track time, track number, etc.).

I'll play with it some more, but my first impression after enabling the FHX processing is that it degrades the sound quality. I think the player sounds better without that $49.99 add-on. I have it in the Advanced "exclusive" mode right now but I'll try to toggle back and forth to evaluate that $49.99 feature as well. Also need to try and swap between Audirvana and Fidelia to compare the two players.

My gut feel right now is that Audirvana still sounds better, but I've got a long way of comparison listening to go before I will solidify that opinion.

I'm listening on a pair of Sennheiser earbuds connected to my Macbook Air, here at work.

Craig.

 

Sorry, I was being a bit lazy there, trying to abbreviate Audirvana Plus by calling it A+.

I completely forgot about FHX, since I don't have a decent set of headphones yet, but you've reminded me that different users will have different requirements.

Your first impressions are probably right about FHX processing degrading the sound. I don't even like using the filters in Fidelia Advanced, although I felt the same way about Audirvana Plus.

Users on Computer Audiophile and elsewhere have mentioned that various releases of Audirvana sound different (it's been said of Amarra too), but I haven't been able to play around with that yet.

Someone posted his own FHX user settings on Head-Fi awhile back but I don't know if they would be useful for you.

 

Thanks for the tip about that forum.

I have read some of the recent comments on an Audirvana thread there, and it seems that the developer might be close to solving the issues with the player's library management feature. Here's the beginning of a post from the developer on August 5:

That seems promising. After spending another day with Fidelia, I still think Audirvana is the best sounding Mac audio player, but a long shot. So if the upcoming Audirvana Plus 2.0 retains that superior sound quality, AND it solves the library management performance issues that have driven me away from considering the player, then I will definitely give the free trial a chance, and if it turns out to work then it may be the one that finally earns the $75 or so out of my bank account.

Craig.

 

I believe all this app does it access your Audio MIDI settings direct to ensure itunes is not downsampling your hi-res. You can do that also by manually setting AUDIO MIDI to proper hi-res output.

The trick is then remembering to do that for your std res. As then iTunes will upsample to the Audio MIDI settings... which is likely causing the 'bad sound' many hear with iTunes.

This is hardly a marvel of software engineering and basically a convenience feature people are paying a lot of money for due to ignorance of the Audio MIDI settings. Silly audiophiles.

iTunes itself is transparent and doing no processing. Running std res using itunes to a Airport Express is bit-perfect per Stereophile measurements.

 

This is all it's doing:

http://www.mcelhearn.com/how-to-listen-to-high-resolution-audio-files-on-a-mac/

 

I'm not sure that's all that it's doing. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some DSP or EQ being done to the signal as well with this and other audiophile players.

For what it's worth, there's an app called BitPerfect that's free that will change your Audio MIDI settings on the fly.

Bill

 

Are you sure BitPerfect is free software? I had to purchase it from the Apple AppStore, but the price was very low.

 

Maybe there's a charge now but I could have sworn it used to be free.

 

I'm not a software coder. But to my ears, Audirvana sounds better than iTunes plus BitPerfect, which sounds better than iTunes alone. And I was manually changing the bit depth and sample rate in Audio MIDI settings before I switched.

 

I don't think this is accurate. I always changed my sample rate settings in Audio/MIDI Settings manually before playing an album before installing Audirvana Plus. I started to explore these apps as a way for that change to happen automatically, and was also stunned by how much the sound improved over doing it manually.

As far as I can tell, the real benefit is the fact that the app can bypass a lot of the coreaudio components in the kernel and get the bitstream straight through my HDMI port and to my DAC (which is much higher quality than the onboard DAC on the Mac) in a consistent manner. The fact that it will preload the tracks in memory and can take CPU priority over all other processes helps drive this consistency.

 

First, the preloading in memory isn't a big deal. The computers we're using today are so powerful that it's not a little music file that's going to tax them. That's just marketing.

As for a digital file going through coreaudio, all it's doing is converting it to either a bitstream or to Apple Lossless format (if you're using AirPlay), then pushing it out your USB or Toslink port. The app is doing the same thing; depending on the format, it may or may not be able to put it through transparently, but iTunes is doing the same thing (again, depending on the format). If it's a compressed file, it has to be uncompressed by either of them to go out a digital port, or converted to Apple Lossless to go via AirPlay.

The way the people who make these apps suggest that there's something "wrong" about a computer doing this is dishonest.

 

Did you then restart iTunes?

 

No. Why would that matter? My DAC registered the correct sample rate once I changed it in AudioMidi Settings.

 

I use Audirvana, the free version, Decibel (I paid for it) and a program called COG. COG is nice because it will play .shn files as well as the others. I don't notice much, if any difference in sound, they all sound very good. I don't have any MP3s, just flac, wav and .shn for the most part, and quite a few 24/96 and higher files along with the 24/44.1 Beatles files.. I don't understand the play list load times. I don't set up any play lists, I just have two large hard drives and drag the files I want to listen to into the play window.

I have quite an old core solo mac mini, hooked up via optical out to an HD990 CD player that will perform jitter reduction/removal and thence to an HK990 integrated amp via the HRS link.

 

Just bumping the thread because Audirvana Plus 2.0 was released very recently. I've been using it for a few days. The new library interface is mostly usable, but there are some minor warts that should be resolved in time.

Version 2 sounds a bit better to me on various DACs I've tried it on so far. Anyone else tried version 2?

 

I finally upgraded to Mavericks and upgraded my old free Audirvana free software to Audirvana 2 plus. I don't notice any sonic advantage or disadvantage of 2+ over my older software running the free version. I did lose integer mode on my DAC in the process. Audirvana 2 plus can be used in 3 modes (all of which are an improvement over standard iTunes when using hog mode and direct mode). 1) iTunes integration mode (with a slight reduction in detail, airiness, and impact compared to the other modes), 2) Standard mode which includes an acceptable browser and ability to create a listening playlist, and 3) iTunes synchronization mode which scans the .xml iTunes folder that contains playlists and should allow access to your created playlists without iTunes in the background without the sonic degredation of the integrated mode. I cannot get the third option to work as of yet.

It's a good program and there's a free trial. The developer has previously been active to fix bugs and add features with reasonable or no price increases. I hope Metric Halo will incorporate the integer mode in the future, as they did previously, but it's shooting at a moving target the way Apple has changed their Coreaudio integration the past couple of years.

 

I know people believe different things and report experiencing differences, but from an objective perspective I know of no demonstration that bit-perfect software playback makes any difference using a typical modern computer/DAC - despite whatever explanation the company might use.

Although it has been >1 year since these tests (I rarely use a Mac anymore):
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/05/measurements-bit-perfect-audiophile.html

Using Audirvana Plus 1.4.6 at that time did not demonstrate any measurable difference off my TEAC UD-501 USB DAC comparing a number of different players including iTunes with bit-perfect settings. I also included tests with DSD audio. Personally, with a properly working system, I would advise spending money for features you want rather than supposed sound quality unless one specifically wants DSP; in that case I think the company should say so.

 

I am getting my main system reconfigured to use a computer as a source and Audrivana 2 is first up So, no, it is installed but unused as of this moment. Probably this week if I can stop playing records long enough to hook up my computer.

 

Interesting post, thank you. I thought I'd heard a difference between Audirvana and iTunes, but that was fully subjective, and I can't rule out confirmation bias.

 

The main thing I wanted was something that adjusted the bit rate/sampling freq on the fly and BitPerfect does that pretty good for the $10 or so it costs. It's got some quirks when it comes to Airplay and the Remote app but they're minor for me.

Bill

 

I just built a dedicated music server with a Mac Mini optimized for music (shut off a bunch of non-essential OS functions) and I'm running Audirvana Plus. The sound quality is light-years beyond iTunes, but the file management / UI of the dedicated player is maddening... in the Album mode, which presents a grid of album covers, everything is in random order. Track mode, so far as I can tell, lets you sort by only ONE category. For example, "artist": All of the albums appear in alphabetical order by artist, BUT the tracks also appear in alphabetical order.

To my mind, iTunes has a vastly superior UI. Albums appear in alphabetical order by artist, with tracks in descending order, etc. I realize I can simply skip the Audirvana Plus file management with the iTunes Integrated Mode, but I'd like to get this sorted out because A.) I'd prefer to launch / run just one program B.) I'm super-OCD about this stuff, so it's driving me crazy and C.) poor UI design drives me batty. For $75, I expect seamless integration, not a maddening hunt through metadata to figure out WTF is going on.

Anyone else experience this problem?

 

What version?

 

You can set the sort order.