[Red Jacket Mike]

  Finally got around to trying Audirvana 2.0.9 - It's the baby of Audirvana 1.5.10 / 1.5.12 and Amarra 3.0
 
Comparison to 1.5.10:
- Increased transparency and resolution
- Still intimate sounding in comparison to Amarra 3.0 but more open sounding than Audirvana Plus
- Bass resolution and speed better than 1.5.12 (almost Amarra like - very, very close)
- Ditches the laid-back sound for a more lively and musical feel
- Mid range is Amarra like (I think Amarra is still ahead by a hair of margin)
- Improved imaging and treble response - pulls off air without adding fatigue
- Best feature is soundstage hands down - does 3D better than Amarra. Everything falls into place perfectly. HD 800's are really able to capture this. I have yet to put my speakers through 2.0.9, but at least on HD 800, 2.0.9 is more favourable to Amarra 3.0
- Soundstage - SERIOUSLY - it's sounding like a high end streamer (never heard better on a computer setup)
- Amarra is a touch more aggressive with a bigger bite (although Audirvana might be more closer to the sweet spot - expect variance between system)
- I can distinguish this very easily running the HD 800 out of neutral studio gear
 
Completely different beast from previous Audirvana versions. It's voiced exceptionally well. I might prefer it to Amarra 3.0 in many cases.
 
Overall, super happy with 2.0.9 - my favourite sounding Audirvana player to date. In terms of SQ ALONE, I could live with either Amarra 3.0 or Audirvana 2.0.9. I can finally put Audirvana on equal footing with Amarra. Been waiting so long to say this!
 
EDIT: Wanted to mention I'm running Amarra 3.0.2. Will report back if Amarra 3.0.3 changes anything.
 
EDIT2: If you have a HD 800, you must absolutely try Audirvana 2.0.9!!! Game/headphone changer. This is the closest I've gotten on headphones (HD 800 specifically) to sounding like ATC monitors in a custom built studio room. It's been a long time since I've had a smile this big. Absolutely destroying Amarra 3.0.2 on HD 800.

I've been waiting to upgrade to Audirvana from the 1.5.12 I have.  I use it in the iTunes integrated mode, with the latest Yosemite version.  I may want to try the standalone mode, but for now, could I upgrade and continue to use the new version in iTunes integrated mode?  Or does that still exist with version 2?  I understand that soon an IOS remote-style app will be available, as well.  This would be great, considering that Apple's newest version of the remote app no longer displays album art in the 'now playing' mode on the iPhone or iPad screen.

 

[Krutsch]

 
I've been waiting to upgrade to Audirvana from the 1.5.12 I have.  I use it in the iTunes integrated mode, with the latest Yosemite version.  I may want to try the standalone mode, but for now, could I upgrade and continue to use the new version in iTunes integrated mode?  Or does that still exist with version 2?  I understand that soon an IOS remote-style app will be available, as well.  This would be great, considering that Apple's newest version of the remote app no longer displays album art in the 'now playing' mode on the iPhone or iPad screen.

Yes, in short. A+ 2.0 still supports integrated mode - I use this all the time. I am pretty pleased with A+, once the initial bumps were ironed out. Still not using stand-alone mode, although everyone (incl. me) thinks it (maybe) sounds better than stand-alone mode. And, yes, you can still use iTunes Remote with it.
 
To be frank, I just really like the iTunes 12 UX and the A+ 2.0 interface feels really, really o...l...d... and clumsy. Sorry, A+ fans.
 
BTW, if you are sick of Apple's Remote and their high-latency screen refreshes, as well as lack of album art in Now Playing, try an Android phone/tablet and "Retune". Crushes and destroys Apple' Remote app in every way, except one: while you can manage the "Up Next" queue, you cannot edit playlists on-the-fly.

 

[joeexp]

 
Yes, in short. A+ 2.0 still supports integrated mode - I use this all the time. I am pretty pleased with A+, once the initial bumps were ironed out. Still not using stand-alone mode, although everyone (incl. me) thinks it (maybe) sounds better than stand-alone mode. And, yes, you can still use iTunes Remote with it.
 
To be frank, I just really like the iTunes 12 UX and the A+ 2.0 interface feels really, really o...l...d... and clumsy. Sorry, A+ fans.
 
BTW, if you are sick of Apple's Remote and their high-latency screen refreshes, as well as lack of album art in Now Playing, try an Android phone/tablet and "Retune". Crushes and destroys Apple' Remote app in every way, except one: while you can manage the "Up Next" queue, you cannot edit playlists on-the-fly.

Please give us an example of what you consider young and fresh! - Perhaps we can then petition for an UI upgrade!

 

[Krutsch]

 
Please give us an example of what you consider young and fresh! - Perhaps we can then petition for an UI upgrade!

 
Anything that looks like Apple... just kidding... 

 
I could do a full heuristic review of the UI, but what's the point and who am I to judge?
 
I just find it hard to navigate around my collection from different viewpoints. For example, you can have the big list view of all of your songs, and sort by different columns, or the album view. But to change sort/display criteria, you need to open a dialog and tediously edit the sort criteria.
 
So, switching from an artist-centric view to a genre or album title-centric view is tedious. Yes, I know I can just type stuff in the search box, but (a) I don't always know what I am looking for and, so I tend to scan via album covers and (b) I like to see search results sorted by category. Open iTunes 12 and type something in the search box; then so the same in A+ to see the difference.
 
Additionally, the UI is missing fit-and-finish, from a visual design viewpoint. The Album Details field, for example, is very distracting with all of those text boxes with strong, black outlines. Again, *yes*, the information is all there and it works, but bring up the Get Info dialog on iTunes 12 and compare the two.
 
I am not trying to sound like an Apple fanboy, but Apple puts huge effort into the visual details and those details really matter. Another app that doesn't get it is JRiver Media Center (Windows version). Another example of an app with fantastic feature/function, but a horror-show from a usability and visuals design viewpoint.
 
I am not trying to harsh on the A+ author - he's performed miracles with A+. But, I wish Damien would bring on an experienced visual designer to help with the UI; the application is awesome, and he clearly knows what he is doing from a systems internals perspective. But, it's 2015 and the bar is very high.

 

[Solrighal]

If Audirvana allowed navigation by folder structure I'd buy it in a heartbeat but at the moment, for me, it's a steaming pile of junk.

 

[joeexp]

Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software? 

 

 

[Zoom25]

Love the sound on Audirvana Plus 2.0, and it has gotten much better stability since release. Although there are a few caveats. Most of them have to do with managing playlists and editing metadata. On a few albums, I am not able to edit metadata whatsoever. In this area, iTunes kills Audirvana Plus. iTunes playlist system and drag and drop are very useful. 

 

[steffi]

Do these players/library managers do any better job of recognizing the same music stored in different formats?
 
iTunes isn't very good at this.

 

[Solrighal]

Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software?   

I'm glad you get a laugh from other people's problems. Perhaps, instead of mocking other people's misfortune, you'd like to explain to a simpleton like me why it's NOT possible?

The software is already using the folder structure so my asking to be able to use it directly doesn't seem like such a stretch.

 

[audiolibrarian]

I'm glad you get a laugh from other people's problems. Perhaps, instead of mocking other people's misfortune, you'd like to explain to a simpleton like me why it's NOT possible?

The software is already using the folder structure so my asking to be able to use it directly doesn't seem like such a stretch.

 
 
I agree that the previous comment wasn't very helpful and would like to see people be more understanding that not everyone has the same preference. I for one hate pretty much all the audio players I've tried on a Mac. Sound quality isn't an issue, but rather a lack in options, customization or unnecessary bloat. To explain a little more for those who care to try and understand, I'll give a few examples. For the most part every player seems to give you an iTunes like look whether you want it or not, a layout that cannot be changed, or both. Then, some of them seem to just include a bunch of, what I consider junk, in the main program and I would rather these things be plugins that I can choose to have or not. To top it off most of these programs cost money and some a ridiculous amount when compared to something like foobar2000 or any of the really popular Windows audio applications that are FREE. It's quite sad, but it seems most people on a Mac just don't give a **** and use iTunes or whatever.
 
Zorrofox, I wanted to know if you could explain to me this folder structure thing for me; sorry I didn't feel like going back tons of pages to find it.

 

[Solrighal]

The thing is I've already got my music pretty well sorted on an external drive. It looks like this..

Music / Artist / FLAC or MP3 / Album

I'm 7000 miles from home right now or I'd throw a screen grab up.

The reason I have MP3 is because I need lossy versions for the car stereo. If I only had FLAC to deal with it wouldn't be such a problem. Also, my tagging is not perfect. This makes finding music that I know I have very difficult.

And I agree with you in regards to the interface issues and particularly costs. My Mac mini is pretty much perfect hardware-wise as a server but it's let down by the software.

And I still haven't read a definitive explanation as to why some Mac players sound better than others. Bit-perfect should be exactly that.

I'm using JRiver MC19 because it allows the folder view I prefer (eventually) and isn't too expensive. It's ugly as sin though.

Right now, I'd kill for a Foobar Mac equivalent. It really doesn't seem like too much to ask for.

 

[audiolibrarian]

So, I take it you want to exclude certain folders i.e. MP3 from view or am I missing something? I'm more or less just curious so that I am informed. I would really like to see a player similar or better than foobar, but it seems like the majority of the audience is content with these lack luster audio programs. I just want some customization and being able to play my FLAC. Not sure why Mac is such a disappointing experience compared to the Windows side of things. Please, if someone is reading these posts and can make a foobar like program for Mac, DO IT!

 

[Krutsch]

  Nobody -  but  you  - seems to be needing a "folder structure"; Perhaps it isn't the software? 

 

That is a mean-spirited, bull-Schiit comment, and you know it. Many, many users of A+ have asked about folder-level management.

 

[Solrighal]

So, I take it you want to exclude certain folders i.e. MP3 from view or am I missing something? I'm more or less just curious so that I am informed. I would really like to see a player similar or better than foobar, but it seems like the majority of the audience is content with these lack luster audio programs. I just want some customization and being able to play my FLAC. Not sure why Mac is such a disappointing experience compared to the Windows side of things. Please, if someone is reading these posts and can make a foobar like program for Mac, DO IT!

No, quite the opposite. I want to see everything in the location I put it.

It's not that it's such a big deal either. As I said, I've managed to make JRMC provide the view I like. I just can't understand why Apple programs are so determined to obscure something as fundamental as the basic folder tree. It's already there, they just choose to make it invisible. And that's not logical. Computers must be logical.

 

[joeexp]

I'm glad you get a laugh from other people's problems. Perhaps, instead of mocking other people's misfortune, you'd like to explain to a simpleton like me why it's NOT possible?

The software is already using the folder structure so my asking to be able to use it directly doesn't seem like such a stretch.

I'm not laughing! The OS X Finder already has very powerful tools [including Aliases] to organise your music. I'm just wondering why you would need another level of file organisation inside the Player.
 ,,,
 
No harm intended.