- #AUDIRVANA STUDIO SOUND QUALITY PRO#
- #AUDIRVANA STUDIO SOUND QUALITY TRIAL#
- #AUDIRVANA STUDIO SOUND QUALITY FREE#
So, I renewed my Qobuz subscription and started the Studio trial to make my own comparisons. Obviously, my friend’s enthusiasm got me excited too and I just had to try it myself. I had actually convinced him to try Audirvana 3.5 a few years ago.
He was just gobsmacked by the overwhelming differences and he just couldn’t believe how the Studio version could sound so much better! He has a great HiFi shop and is well known and respected. I was disappointed Audirvana Studio only offering subscription, no hope of Spotify connect etc.Īnd yesterday a great audiophile friend of mine called me about the comparison he’d made between the 3.5 and Studio. I had even cancelled my Qobuz subscription a couple months ago and waiting for Spotify hires streaming service. To be honest, I was very hesitant about the Studio version and was just waiting to see how things would develop. I came here to start this topic myself, but I see the discussion’s well underway. Hope they’ll achieve their goal, otherwise, it’s just such a waste. I was ready to take the subscription, if the overall sound experienced hadn’t degrade, but it does. Widening their target, Audirvana will surely lose die hard sound aficionados along the way. I think they just decide to please the majority, who is not - let’s be lucid - an audiophile audience.
, I’ll stick to 3.5 as long as it is possible. To sum it up : 3.5 has a magic to it, that studio fails to reproduce. Whatever has been done is detrimental to the signal. Something that wasn’t done in 3.5, with the same configuration, happens in Studio. So Studio is not sending bit perfect signal to the DAC. Whatever treatment was added, or changes in the treatment, strip the sound of its liveliness.Īs in my configuration I’m not using any treatment to the signal, this difference shouldn’t exist. It’s a slight difference, but it’s there. No treatment whatsoever in both cases : no oversampling, no volume control.
#AUDIRVANA STUDIO SOUND QUALITY PRO#
System is as follow : Macbook Pro => Diepti on RBPi 4 (through cat 7 ethernet cable through audiophile router) => DAC via coaxial. I decided to take my time to compare both versions, something is wrong with Studio. iFi (LOVE THEM) is pushing Audirvana Studio HARD on social media. It wouldn’t surprise me if Damien jumped on the MQA bandwagon and now is shaping the sound off from GTO/MQA. In all honesty, the new sound reminds me of when iFi introduced their GTO filter (vs bit perfect Cookies & Cream), based off the same algorithm created/used by MQA. Everything sounds veiled, but not in a muffled sense (ie lack of upper mids), rather smeared by the “enhanced” detail. Yes, AS does add “presence”, but it’s artificial to the sound. Heck, overall the whole sound is fatiguing. Cymbals sound too metallic and fatiguing. Vocals don’t sound as detailed, with added hotness to the sibilance. I find 3.5 to sound far more natural and analogue than AS.
#AUDIRVANA STUDIO SOUND QUALITY FREE#
Like most here I have been checking out the free trial, and now that it has almost been a month I switched back to 3.5 for tonight’s listening session and here is what I hear.
0 kommentar(er)
