![]() ![]() My one serious criticism of the built-in sweetening in Audirvana: Plisson should allow users to turn off the Audirvana filters with a checkbox to allow real bit-perfect playback. While a subjectivist* like me prefers bit-perfect! What a strange world. ![]() Still, I'm astonished to find so many Audirvana users among men of science though. Damien knows what his business as a coder and he's got a good ear. Oh, and my opinion, Audirvana sweetening is successful for most music. He could test Audirvana against foobar (which I also successfully tested on OS X for identical bit-perfect playback though the OS X foobar is a limited feature beta version). I'd suggest do some bit perfect playback tests between Audirvana and the applications I mentioned but Amir is a Windows lifer, considering his past. He mentions that he did the test with Audirvana playback. It surprised him in an otherwise perfect measurement performance. I can't find it out now, but has a test graph of stereo separation for one of the DACs he tested which shows a blurry line in the middle instead of a clean one. No bit-perfect player can sound better than another through the identical DAC unless that player is sweetening/treating the sound. Why do you think Audirvana sounds better? Because it's more bit-perfect? Surely you realise that bit-perfect is an absolute. I actually went to the trouble to compare them all before reaching this conclusion. Otherwise Audirvana would sound just like all the other (about half a dozen) bit-perfect players for OS X. How much more clear does it have to be? The publisher himself is claiming that he's sweetening the signal.Īs I mentioned, of course Audirvana is improving/sweetening the sound. Damien specifically answers a customer (in French, in which I'm fluent): Guys read the thread more attentively please before barking. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |