In my opinion, he's been quite successful. Swinsian, Calibri, Decibel, Fidelia all sound identical on music which they can play back at native resolution (Decibel doesn't handle all bitrates of DSD). I haven't tested Bitperfect only because I never use iTunes but from repots it falls into the same group. They are all bitperfect in standard configuration and hence identical. Audirvana sounds different, arguably "better". On the plus side for Audirvana, the DAC support and exclusive stream is rock solid and provides the most detailed information about the connection of any of the OS X players. 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.
Otherwise Audirvana would sound just like all the other (about half a dozen) bit-perfect players for OS X. I actually went to the trouble to compare them all before reaching this conclusion. Why do you think Audirvana sounds better? Because it's more bit-perfect? Surely you realise that bit-perfect is an absolute. No bit-perfect player can sound better than another through the identical DAC unless that player is sweetening/treating the sound. 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. It surprised him in an otherwise perfect measurement performance.
He mentions that he did the test with Audirvana playback.
0 kommentar(er)
