Regarding filters, etc. in HQPlayer V3:
PCM: 25 filters (includes the sinc-M filter) + none & 8 dither options (does NOT include LNS-15) + none
SDM: 24 filters & 8 modulators
My trial of Studio has ended today and I must say I do not consider to extend it (if there is such option) nor to enter subscription model. Studio has nice interface but is missing most basic features comparing to Audirvana 3.5. I can not hear any difference in the sound. Kernel streaming has its own limitation as well so no or little gain here. I’m very disappointed with Studio development but I can do anything more about it except start looking for another player to replay eventually Audirvana 3.5.
On a side note as a person who knows a thing or two about software development I am surprised that Audirvana developers had chosen to release software full of bugs and missing a lot of functionality from their older product. It was a great music adventure with Adrivana 3.5 for me and thank you for that. Now it is time to move on and find something better.
5 Likes
It’s me who has HQPlayer V3.
He bought V4, and it has more filters.
So we have both the same filters and the same number.
He has more of them.
1 Like
In my view, the biggest strategic mistake they made was to launch it as a “final”, subscription-based software instead of doing a limited beta program with longtime 3.5 users in order to gather feedback, iron out bugs and assess whether there would be stomach for subscriptions.
Had they done that, I am absolutely sure reactions around here would be a lot more positive.
4 Likes
They did that. There will never be a stomach for subscriptions, they just had to decide whether to go with it or not. It’s on users to decide if they can digest that.
1 Like
Do you know how many people participated in the so called beta test ? And for how long?
I’m assuming you don’t want those of us ‘trialing’ the software for the past month included in those figures? 
2 Likes
How many I don’t know, but it was about a month for me.
1 Like
Well if they did beta it was not very successful from all the feedback I’m reading. I don’t understand how you charge people for something that has glitches and obviously is not ready for prime time
Thanks for letting me know. Can you also let me know how much it will cost you to upgrade to V4 considering you are getting 7 more new filters, and two more dithers? TIA.
The price of V4 is $320.68 in Canadian dollars. With the discount code from V3, the price is $256.54 in Canadian dollars; That’s a discount of $64.14 in Canadian dollars.
Thanks for sharing. Are you happy with the sound quality giving your current various filters and dithers options?
Then make a bug report and don’t subscribe. For me it works pretty flawlessly, so I will subscribe.
Don’t extrapolate your situation to ‘all users’
1 Like
I don’t think he is referring to “all users,” he said, “all the feedback.” And all the negative feedback need to be addressed. In other words, you, as a happy user, belong to the “satisfactory group” while the unhappy users with issues belong to the 'unsatisfactory group."
1 Like
It’s a player that is relatively expensive, but the sound quality that you get is worth the money.
EDIT
The upgrade in SQ that you get can be assimilated to an upgrade to your Hi-Fi system to a seperior one, which will be more costly.
1 Like
Sorry to appear pedantic, but I think you mean “Satisfied Group” and “Unsatisfied Group”.
Some could even be tempted to flag your post for less than that… 
No need to apologize. If the message gets clarified, it is even better!
Btw, if my message gets flagged, I will have a good hearty laugh! 
1 Like
I get your point. But I think people have to realize what the situation is here. Damien has been selling Audirvana licenses since 2014 or something, to at most a few thousand people. I mean, this is a niche product. Looking at myself, I probably paid twice for a major update, but in total, including the discounts, I can’t have paid more than 150-180 euros in total. That’s for seven years of use! That’s less money in total than my one HQPlayer license, and that version is now outdated; if I want to use the most recent HQPlayer version I have to pay more than I paid for 7 years of Audirvana again. Audirvana has worked relatively flawless the entire time for me (and probably for most Mac users with a small database). Studio sounds amazing to my ears, so I will subscribe.
Think about it: these single licenses were not enough to put bread on the guy’s table for year after year. So he made a remote, and he expanded to Windows. At both those junctures I thought: that’s a shame, that doesn’t do anything for me. But I understood why he needed to do that. If he would have limited himself to Macbook users, he probably would have had to stop this whole project altogether and find a regular job.
I completely understand that people feel disappointed when they experience buggy behavior from Studio, and maybe they overpromised with the sleek styling and all, but I have the idea that a lot of people expect the smooth customer experience of a big company, while they know its just a two man show. What do you expect? Of course it’s relatively expensive compared to Roon, but that’s just economy of scale. This is just another step in the development of Audirvana, and they probably released Studio a bit too early, but boy, the negativity here… can we get real? Stop acting offended that you don’t get the five star 24/7 customer service of a big company, because you know it isn’t. Audirvana started as the pet project, and was just successful enough to grow into a niche company, and boy am I glad it did. I’ll gladly take the suboptimal communication skills that go with the sound wizardry.
So to me it seems simple enough: either don’t pay for Studio, enjoy 3.5 and stop bitching (I don’t say that to anyone in particular), or give these guys some confidence that they can fix things and pay for subscription (you can pay per month for christ sake, that’s the price of how many beers…?). Or… just extend your trial period once the remote comes out. Just relax.
7 Likes