Audirvana plus 1.5
![audirvana plus 1.5 audirvana plus 1.5](https://docplayer.net/docs-images/44/20665865/images/page_12.jpg)
It's really intolerable and drives me to rarely listen to music I have on my laptop, as a result. It seems to take longer and longer as I add more tracks to the playlist. It takes up to a minute or longer to fully load, and this is on a Macbook Air with SSD drive. I have Audirvana free version, and while I agree with you that the sound quality is orders of magnitude better than iTunes (which frankly sucks from a sound-quality perspective), I am dragged down and annoyed every time I start Audirvana, by how long it takes to load my entire playlist of about 2,500 MP3s (and maybe 100 FLAC files).
Audirvana plus 1.5 upgrade#
Spending the big bucks are not always the best way to upgrade your stereo. My conclusion: While there are some differences between an entry level DAC and a high end DAC, the differences are small compared to the differences between iTunes and Audirvana.
![audirvana plus 1.5 audirvana plus 1.5](https://docplayer.net/docs-images/44/20665865/images/page_4.jpg)
The sound is more dynamic and alive, with improved bass, treble and midrange.īy the way, I did benchmark some expensive DACs (to ensure that integrated MA7900 DAC was something I could live with). For instance, the new Mc-models have improved soundstage and resolution, and are closer to other high end brands like Luxman and Accuphase (the latter has still a wider soundstage, and mc has still a deeper soundstage – but they are more similar).Ĭonclusion: Investing in a high end player (there are several) may upgrade your overall sound experience more than expensive hard ware. You may think that the next big sound revolution could be on the computer side, while the high end equipment tend to sound more and more similar. Investing in such players is not a very huge investment, but the differences are noteworthy.
![audirvana plus 1.5 audirvana plus 1.5](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6LU7Y3qARpk/U6bA5Z5oYBI/AAAAAAAABJw/Ys9yn-tpmBw/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/01-หน้าเวบ+Audirvana.png)
I am pretty sure there are similar high end players out there. Knowing that I am playing this on a Mcintosh amplifier with plenty of dynamics and deep soundtage, the differences are nothing less than remarkable. The midrange is thinner the treble is not as present or smooth. Going back to iTunes, it sounds like a CD – flat sound in contrast. The instruments and voices are separated, and there is plenty of air in the soundstage. Using the same input hi res files for both players, Audirvana reminds me of a vinyl record (without the noise). Keep in mind that I benchmarked with 22/24 bit music. I benchmarked with the Quad ESL, and while they very revealing compared to most affordable+ speakers, I am pretty sure the differences are obvious on most over average loudspeakers as well. There is a significant difference between iTunes and Audirvana Plus.
Audirvana plus 1.5 trial#
In my opinion this is wrong (after using the trial version of the program). From my point of view, a player is a player – and why should I try something else than iTunes (as long the sound quality is High Res), right?
Audirvana plus 1.5 pro#
While upgrading my system with a new MA7900, I was "tripping over" some good feedback regarding Audivana Plus - a music player for the Macbook pro / OS X.