Mark Robinson

I submit both 1644 and 2496 masters to my clients. I would say 1/4 of them pay extra to upload the 2496 separately from the redbook WAVs. Qobuz doesnt mess with them. Tidal uses MQA which changes the masters every single time.

It is hard to make generalizations about NOS vs OS, especially since both have a variety of different implementations that can affect their sound quality. Ive mostly used delta sigma OS DACs in my work and they are definitely more linear sounding than R2R NOS DACs. Thats a safe generalization. However, once I started using NOS ladder DACs a few years ago, I noticed that the midrange presentation had a firmer, weightier quality compared to DS. Coming from 20+ years of cutting tape (still own Stephens 821b, Studer 827mk2, and ATR-102 machines) this midrange weight has alluded me with PCM transfers. When I first heard 1 bit DSD, I got the mids back from tape. When I first heard R2R, I got most of the mids back from tape, but I lost some top end resolution due to some low level hash. In mastering the mids are where the money is. The highs and lows can be more easily contoured with EQ, but there is no fixing the midrange quality, particularly the upper mids. Using tubes and transformers can help smear the mids back into an analog representation, but now you get distortion, loss of separation and other masking effects. Bottomline for me: I use OS DS for monitoring because of its linearity, low distortion and speed, while accepting the dreaded delta sigma etching thru the mids. I use R2R for a lot of transfers in order to restore the mids back into place, and also as cure for digititus resulting from way too much DSP being used in the DAW these days. Excessive plugin use at 44.1khz (aliasing) is the culprit behind that vast majority of modern-day sound quality issues, but thats another topic altogether. Ok thats enough OT. Thanks for letting me share these thoughts. I use Audirvana Studio daily to check my work on various playback systems. It lets me listen to my original 2496 prints against the Qobuz/Tidal deliveries on a level playing field.

I believe both my DS DACs are filtering and oversampling. Some projects sound better when I transfer thru them, but most projects I prefer R2R NOS. The R2R NOS transfers are typically a little darker, but this can be easily made up for with a gentle shelving EQ. I have no problem with how people like to enjoy their music in their homes (im not sure how this applies?), but I do have a problem when a delivery format changes the intended sound of a master while operating under the guise of transparency. For example, I have a few thousand masters on Tidal that have been MQA'd after my delivery to the client. The MQA process represents a clear deviation from the sound I delivered to the artist or label who hired me. Im allowed to object to what MQA is doing because they are altering my work after the fact. In a similar way, this is what is happening to my masters when they are massively oversampled for playback - the sound deviates from the engineer's intention.

Because Im a dinosaur that still masters from half inch tape, im able to monitor the analog source before any digital touches the signal. Once I start choosing DACs, processors and ADCs, my mastering console allows me to switch between the original tape source and the roundtrip AD DA conversion to analyze the differences. I can tell you all with 100% certainty that the sound of oversampling is emphatically not the sound of the analog source. Does it sound bad? Obviously not, and in many cases it helps pull the mix apart in a way that could suit the users monitoring path, but to assume it is revealing the source in its truest light is false. If someone prefers the sound of deviation from the source (oversampling), of course that is their right to prefer that deviation as long as they are aware that is one to begin with. Heaven forbid they think they are listening to the truth according to the intention of mix and mastering engineers when in fact they are not. :)

In mastering we use two DACs, a transfer DAC and a monitor DAC. The transfer DAC gets baked into the sound of the final master (that the consumer hears) and the monitor DAC is used only for the engineer's monitoring path. My monitor DAC is a Lavry Quintessence, which is a very transparent delta sigma DAC, great at revealing whats actually there, and nothing more. My transfer DACs are selected on a per project basis according to the sound quality of the incoming mixes (ie: thin, punchy, dark, jumpy, brittle, narrow, congested, etc). They are the Holo May KTE (R2R NOS), SW1X DAC III Balanced (tube R2R NOS), and Merging DA8P (Delta Sigma OS).

This is only true if you love the sound of oversampling. As a grammy winning mastering engineer, I can tell you point blank that oversampling pulls the master away from the original analog sound. How do I know this? Because I have mastered countless songs from half inch 2 track tape (ATR-102), and the moment you start oversampling the original PCM transfer, you leave the analog capture behind and move towards a DSP sound that many people love because it makes them think their systems sound better than they really are. When I listen to Audirvana VS HQPlayer using my 96khz PCM transfer (via Lavry Savitr ADC), I cannot say HQPlayer sounds better.

Nope, unfortunately Integer Mode is blocked out with the Merging Hapi (and likely Anubis as well), which is why I was hoping Audirvana could speak directly to the Ravenna network without needing CA.

That's right. From what I understand, a direct AES67 device (with no core audio involved) uses a pure integer transmission, which means no floating point container. Core Audio puts everything into FP and thru its AU module layers (SRC, summation, wordlenth, and gain) before handing off to Ravenna. No bueno.

Yes, using the latest VAD, but maybe im wrong in assuming that Audirvana creates its own AES67 appliance on the network? VAD essentially turns Apple's Core Audio into a Ravenna device, allowing any native Mac OS sound app (Audirvana included) to communicate with any Merging hardware device broadcasting to the Ravenna network. However, Core Audio is the middleman you want to avoid at all costs IMO. My tests have confirmed that Core Audio degrades sound quality and should be bypassed during critical recording or playback whenever possible. If Audirvana can communicate as a direct AES67 appliance on the network, then we can avoid going thru VAD's Core Audio driver. This is what Im looking for.

Im using Mac OS 12.3.1 on an intel and Audirvana Studio 1.12.2. 7.1.4 over AES67 is impressive. All I need is a single stereo feed. I have been using the Merging Core Audio driver with Audirvana np, but Id like to bypass CA with Ravenna. Really grateful for your help.

Hi, I use the Merging Hapi mk2 as a mastering engineer and would like to get Audirvana streaming to it via Ravenna but I cannot find a setup guide anywhere. Is there a resource you can point me to or instructions on how to get Audirvana’s AES67 I/O sinks posted on the network for me route from? Thanks for any help you can give.

Damien, I just wanted to chime in and say thank you for such an outstanding player / remote. For a version 1.0, the new remote is a pure success. Congrats! Also, A+ 2.2 sounds incredible, especially while playing DSD thru the Benchmark DAC2! -Mark 20 years as a professional recording and mastering engineer, and still learning everyday