Why is this not flagged as inappropriate. When the other ones were. A little biased I assume. This comment should be flagged as inappropriate as well Damien
Posts are flagged as inappropriate by community members (such as you or me), not by Damien.
Flagging a post brings it to Damien’s attention.
If Damien were to consider a post inappropriate he wouldn’t flag it, he’d simply delete it (and possibly ban the poster).
With what we see here with Audirvana, where you payed for a „lifetime“ usage of version 3.5, paying for „lifetime“ doesn‘t mean that you pay and can use it as long as you live, but as long as this particular product lives. The company may decide to discontinue the product, to rename it or just goes belly up.
1 Like
Did you do a direct comparison on functionality and sound quality? From what I heard Roon‘s main focus is the UI/UX, while Audirvana‘s the sound quality. But I personally didn‘t compare both products, because the importance of playing local files dropped for me after subscribing to Qobuz. I am just playing local in the rare event that something is not available in Qobuz and then I usually play the CD or vinyl from my collection.
Hello Mr Capehart.
I think I can appreciate your views. I think Audirvana Studio is terrific. I’m prepared to pay for something I like and is working pretty well… especially when I’m looking at other products available. Now this is purely my opinion. I play almost exclusively classical solo instrument or chamber and I find the resolution beyond comparison. Sounding like acoustic piano in my living room, delightful.
Yes, there are some glitches in current AS as I’ve already detailed and will continue to tabulate and share as time progresses.
I look forward to AS being perfect, Yet I’m aware there are thousands of people who do not see my perfect; nor do I see their perfect.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 8 hours.
Stock, without any adjustments to the sound, I would go with Audirvana. However, I have no reason to believe that Studio sounds superior to the Plus version, so I wouldn’t be much help for that comparison.
With that said, Roon has the potential to sound much better than Audirvana. It features a suite of filter options, including multiple avenues for EQ’ing. In particular, the Convolution filter has made a significant difference. Basically with Convolution, you can upload zip files respective to your audio gear that contain pre-eq’d frequency graphs, so applying the equalization is really as easy as it gets. All of the gear listed in the library have already been EQ’d via AutoEq, which is a much longer story, involving Python and Homebrew and lots of typing in the terminal. Needless to say, I downloaded the zip for both my LCD-3 and Ether C, uploaded it into Roon. The EQ was so accurate, I couldn’t have made my cans sound sound better if I wanted to (which I did, but there was literally no meat left.). If you’re interested I’ll post a link to the zip library.
In summary, my headphones sound vastly better in Roon, after these adjustments. I would be shocked if Audirvana Studio didn’t implement something similar by launch. Hopefully, a basic EQ at the very least. I will spend more time playing around with third party EQ’s & Audirvana. If I can replicate what I did in Roon, I’ll definitely stick with Audirvana 3.5 .
Actually a very good point with regard to AS.
What will happen when users are paying a subscription for software (they don’t actually own) that proves to not work satisfactorily following a potential future update/patch.
Is it going to be a case of oh well, never mind? Thanks for the subscription money (so far)?
Or will any potential future problem actually be remedied?
My experience with .45 leaves me doubting this will be the case. Still bug-ridden with seemingly no interest from the developer in remedying them.
There’s the potential for far too many users experiencing differing problems for Audirvana to EVER have the ability to keep up with the patches/updates required.
When users are paying monthly for a service (which let’s face it, the subscription model adopted by Audirvana is) that doesn’t work for them through no fault of their own, where does that leave Audirvana, and more importantly the end user that’s been supporting them through their subscription payments and is left with a software solution which is about as much use as a chocolate teapot?
Money down the drain when the version that worked suddenly decides not to, with no remedy in sight?
Ok, I’m just trying Studio 1.1. Spontaniously saying, soundwise Kernel-Streaming is a significant improvement. The new search features almost deliver a feature suggestion I made a few months ago. Radio stations and podcasts are a nice add-on that I’m not looking for really. However, you never know, I’m not going to use it in the future.
Version 3.5 I had registered 9 months ago. I thought digitally I was almost equal to vinyl. With Studio I would question that my vinyl sound chain would be better compared to highres digital.
Considering the audio hardware equipment I have in place, the subscription model clearly is an option.
1 Like
Wait, Studio hasn’t officially launched yet, right? The trial version can’t be the final build…
1 Like
Well, the guys at Aurdirvana just lost me. Subscriptions no thanks.
2 Likes
Yes. I think that too.
Im very happy to subscribe when the software is (more?) complete. Subscription implies constant attention to software fixes and updates (or subscribers fall away) which will eventually result in a a fabulous product.
I take that back. Actually, I’ll subscribe the moment it becomes subscribable.
I’ve been with Audirvana for a long time and have found the attention to detail and loyalty to purchasers beyond excellent.
Subscription also gives me and supplier budgeting transperancy. Im very sure that Damien is never gunna be a millionaire from Audirvana. And if he is getting millions he deserves every penny.
By-the-way… I use Audirvana Studio every day and usually most of the day (including when I’m cleaning (?)) with not thousands of Albums but quite a few. I still want good music management please. Currently a frustrating experience finding what i want.
2 Likes
I sincerely hope not, as a patch for the file analysation snafu has been announced.
Whilst I would like that to be the case ,no one has come forward and announced “a public all users test period”
Following the launch video etc and the hype around the revised web site , the inability to buy 3.5 anymore I would declare this an Official Launch Version.
The only audience so far as I can tell is existing Audirvana customers. Has any NEW customer managed to download and connect I don’t know.
The reaction as I read it apart from a few dedicated Audirvana users (some of who seem to have been involved in an actual Beta testing program ?) is the reaction to a Release Product.
The main website doesn’t say coming soon , just the subscription pages.
2 Likes
If only you took the time to be so knowledgeable on Audirvana. Was only yesterday you were asking us how it works as you had no idea " How it works under the hood" Using that Logic, how can you do a fair comparison without knowing…? Would the same Logic not apply to Roons subscription service then? Is that too, also Absurd?
A ‘subscription’ model is common for B2B, as has been said.
The issues for B2C are:
- An individual customer has a voice of absolutely no importance (unlike a 100,000 seat corporate subscriber)
- Suddenly the application you used to own, you do no longer and thus unless you pay the penalty fee you can no longer access your wholly-owned materials (be they music, photos, documents)
- If performance fails, you have no comeback - you can’t withdraw your contribution else you cannot access your own property. Unless you pay the fee to someone else, but that is no improvement.
It’s a state of affairs that works for the Adobes of the world (just an example, not singling them out) as they don’t have to care about individual users.
It may just spell the death-knell for AV.
Shame, as an excellent product.
5 Likes
I’m in the baffled camp too.
The subscription model clearly is attractive to the developer as it provides a longer source of income than a simple sale, but it is not obvious (as many others have stated) why it should be attractive to the customer; not only is it more expensive than before, it also appears to devalue any concept of customer loyalty - those who have invested (some recently) in $100 software ought to be given more recognition than the mooted $20 discount on the first year’s subscription and have their previous software abandonned.
Perhaps a more plausible approach would have been to make Audrivana modular - so you can choose to purchase / rent different tiers of function depending on what you need: I’ve no interest in streaming services / radio stations yet if I subscribed I would be paying for these to be made available / supported.
I think ‘software as a service’ business models are trendy right now but I’m not sure it applies so well to this kind of application: not many users of Audirvana ‘rent’ their DACs or speakers, so why should they rent the software they use to play music through them?
Another kind of business model that is popular right now are those that embrace the concepts of ‘sustainability’ - building things to last, listening to stakeholders and meeting their needs, identifying and focusing on the things that really make a difference.
I guess from what is said (and not said) in these forum posts, the business model for Audirvana is still evolving; I hope it ends up in a place that I can engage with - if not I guess it is time to rethink what solution I use to listen.
5 Likes
How can we be sure? Audirvana 3.5 will work until the day the program can’t find the verification page anymore, right? We don’t really own 3.5 either, unless something has changed since it was released.
There was a bit of an outrage about the present model too, with Audirvana needing to reach the internet to verify it as licensed with regular intervals (once a month?). I didn’t like it but eventually bought it anyway. With the subscription model for Studio I’m definitely out.
Edit: I think it’s a travesty that 3.5 in its final form still can’t play DSD from WavPack containers, like more or less all free alternatives out there can. Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a “feature” that’s been saved for Studio. Anyone have any info on that?
1 Like
Audirvana Studio doesn’t run in the Cloud but on the local PC or Mac. Therefore, it‘s not a SaaS model.
4 Likes