As this “bit-energy” or “bit-density” flows through the hardware, it will have influence on hardware responses and the inherent capabilities of the components, sometimes taxing the power-structure at the component level, and triggering data interpretation anomalies, that precipitate audible influences on the final output signal.
#Audirvana vs hqplayer software#
I thought I heard locally sourced tracks in Roon sounding better that their streamed counterparts, but if there was any delta, it was 1/10th of that between Audirvana and Roon.A “bit-perfect” software audio-engine is subject to the hardware platform system-level gremlins… like power-supply noise that precipitates clocking related gate interrupts, invoking error-correction requests, etc, subsequently precipitating jitter related phase anomalies in contextual harmonic, contextual dynamic and contextual spatial relationships… If the data flow is never distorted by the hardware system it flows through as a “perfect” transmission, end-to-end, you may then say what one perceives is “bit-perfect” or as close to perfect, this playback may be, given all of the potentials that must be overcome in the transmission and playback of the bits… The “energy distribution” of the final auditioned signal will be intrinsically tied to the integrity of the data flow. There is still very noticeable difference between Roon and Audirvana, with Audirvana winning every time.īTW, I do not use any DSP features in either Audirvana or Roon, stream directly from local library or Tidal/Qobuz. I am now comparing Roon on a ROCK vs Audirvana on a MacBook Pro, both streaming into OR that is connected to the USB input of C2700.
That should be settled once I get my OR back and run optically isolated streamers, right?
Ok, I thought, Audirvana advertise all sorts of system level gymnastics they do to minimize digital noise from computer into the USB output. The difference between Audirvana and Roon was still unmistakable.Īs much as I hate Audirvana's UI, I would sacrifice a lot for a SQ improvement (the amount of $$ I spent on much lesser upgrades is an undeniable proof).
#Audirvana vs hqplayer windows#
I even went further and installed Windows on that same NUC to give more credence to the test. I then decided to give another look to Audirvana, first time after I acquired C2700, and was immediately taken aback by contrast with Roon running on ROCK. To me, it sounds much better than Foobar and it is much more easier to use.
Now I am back to listening to ROCK directly connected to C2700, it was not sounding terrible, but a loss in SQ was quite evident (compared to OR). Audirvana is my favorite software player and I consider it one of the best. I was a happy camper until recently, when I sent my OR to Andrew G for upgrade. I chose opticalRendu and was not disappointed, it added a lot of detail and space to the sound, compared to ROCK driving DAC directly (I since got Mcintosh C2700).
#Audirvana vs hqplayer series#
I've always found Audirvana sounding better than Roon, but Roon's superior UI was always winning the day.Īfter listening to Roon Nucleus that sounded way better than Roon on Mac mini (first in the series of mysteries), I built a Roon ROCK on a NUC.Īdding a linear power supply to ROCK did little, if anything, until I learned about Rendu's product line. My streaming journey started with Mac mini running Roon/Audirvana and feeding RME ADI-2 DAC.
0 kommentar(er)
