I just think it's funny how those who are opposed to jriver often say stuff like, 'shorter test than expected', and when it becomes clear that the 'A sounds better'-argument doesn't hold any water, the discussion invariably turns to non-essential and subjective arguments about the looks. I just couldn't dismiss something if not all the facts are known to me. I need objectivity, unbiased & in depth observations and experience before I make decisions. I'll be very willing to try it out if a more developed version becomes available in the future. I don't dislike JRiver, and the user interface seems like it could be cool, I just think the developers have not spent the time to make it compatible with a MBP, both in terms of the interface (e.g., pixelated low res text and menus) and the hardware functions (e.g., USB-out). I also like the cleaning up that Audirvana can do at high frequencies, the frequency spectrum goes to silky fine texture instead of fizziness. In any case, I think I will stick with Audirvana just works, particularly with USB output in direct INT mode. However, I think in some tracks the smoothing and processing of Audirvana can tend to blend things slightly, and in these cases I notice slightly better separation in the output from JRiver.I heard this on some of the CD tracks from Red Hot Chili Peppers By the Way, where some blending was noticed between lead and background vocals. One thing I really noticed was how natural echos sounded in live recordings, they were rendered cleaner by Audirvana, including Glenn Gould solo Piano (French Suites) and some Howling Wolf live performances. In very basic terms, the JRiver sound seems to have good separation but it doesn't have the same chrome smooth shine at high frequencies that Audirvana's processing engine brings to the sound.
These headphones cover the spectrum pretty well, and tend to be excellent at bringing out very rich and textured electric bass guitar tones. I could only use my ATH-ES10 (I don't have the adapter handy for the HP jack for the 900X at the moment). So.was there any difference playing direct to my headphones? The answer is definitely yes. Audirvana was running in 24-bit/88.2kHz and I cycled through similar settings in JRiver in the preferences. It is strange, since this works fine with every other app (including Audirvana) on my system, JRiver is the first app I can remember trying that couldn't hook up. OK, so that was a shorter test than I thought! I couldn't get JRiver to output audio via USB to my Fostex, so I only had the direct headphone jack to use for comparison. In some searching around their site, it wasn't obvious what kind of processing is used in JRiver, the guys at Audirvana seem to be more transparent in revealing the guts of their software. I should also say that I usually use Audirvana in direct mode INT, and I noticed an option in JRiver for INT as well.
AUDIRVANA PLUS 2 REVIEW FULL
Audirvana, on the other hand, seems to be running as a proper native software package and it is rendered in full retina resolution. If it is running in some sort of layered mode then it may affect performance relative to its native OS (windows?). Test tracks include full CD quality AIFF, FLAC, then, 256 and 128 AAC.įirst impressions.On my MBP retina system the JRiver user interface is kind of junky-looking, the program is clearly not native to OSX and it may be running in some kind of simulated mode.the menus and other components are rendered in a lower resolution than native apps, and so it looks a bit pixelated and junky from the start. This goes out to (1) ATH ES10, (2) ATH-900X, or my small Marantz MR603 system with Dali Zensor 1 speakers. I use a late 2013 MBP retina going either (A) direct to the headphone jack or (B) connected via USB to a Fostex HPA3. If not, the monthly cost of using Audirvana across my machines would not be worth it.I downloaded JRiver to hear for myself, relative to Audirvana.
AUDIRVANA PLUS 2 REVIEW LICENSE
If the new subscriber model is a personal license across my machines, that would make the pricing shown on the web site ($5.90/moth) more palatable. I have multiple Audirvana licenses to cover multiple machines that I use exclusively.
Otherwise I use the Qobuz player for convenience. I only use Audirvana occasionally when listening to Qobuz with certain DACS. It's the pricing, not necessarily the subscription model that's the critical decision for developers, and their customers. So, if push comes to shove I'll ditch Audirvana. Qobuz on its own provides significant value for me.
For me, I must now pay Audirvana and Qobuz nearly $20/month, altogether. The move to a subscriber model doesn't bother me. I have used Audirvana for years, with iTunes and Qobuz.
0 kommentar(er)
