You might want to rethink your analogy, many technologies (safety included) have trickled down to passenger automobiles from Motorsport. I’m trying to think what Motorsport series Audirvāna would be comparable with………Hummm
DNF perhaps?
… @OffRode
You are posing a straw-man argument, that is not relevant to the premise of my statements regarding audio-quality being diminished by trying to “do everything for everybody”…
You cannot be in every room that you are playing music to, simultaneously, in a distributed audio scenario.… The salient question is surrounding playback sound-quality on the network.… Obviously, the sound-quality one may perceive, is subjective at best, and beholding to system configuration, etc, and auditory neurological factors and cognitive biases.
I don’t want to dumb-down Audirvana Studio’s audio sound-quality just to try to make it “do everything for everybody”… If your system works for you, then you have found your solution, otherwise the rest of us audiophiles, don’t need more functionality than a simple set-up that allows us to appreciate, at a very high-quality level, all of the imbued contextual dynamic and harmonic elements of any given piece of music we audition, that Audirvana Studio facilitates and produces.
Lol…….yeah your on one mate…….ramble on
PS: @Jim_F has the copyrights to “straw man argument “ on the forum, please send him a check asap.
BTW the topic is about networking and wireless speakers………how long is your usb cable?
Back to my “comprimised” system, M33 with B&W 805’s yes it sucks but I’ll suffer thru 
1 Like
…
Never said your system was compromised… I believe you’ve created a working system that you find gives you everything you need… Do you have this level of set-up in every room of your house?
My system configuration uses WireWorld USB cables: (1m) USB 3.1 (1m) USB 3.0 and (18") USB 2.0, with data re-clocking and isolation and USB power filtering…
While I understand what your saying (excellence vs. jack of all trades type thing), but I fail to see why you’re going on when it’s not even known if adding the requested feature of Chromecast transport would affect it at all. There can / should be a way to add it as an additional transport method without diminishing the existing methods. Don’t you think?
2 Likes
…
My premise is, that the facilitation of questionable networking protocols as a “Media Server” is a waste of resources and that the data-handling requirements will surely compromise the sound-quality of Audirvana Studio… Folks hear it in ROON and every other player doing “everything for everybody”
No it just gets worse from here if that’s believable, low to mid-fi at best.
Scraping the bottom, crap stuff……KEF Marantz Oppo Schitt ELAC JBL Pioneer Denon Audeze Sennheiser, all the bottom rung junk, thrift store material at best.
…
Isn’t the case for the majority of distributed audio systems…? Usually there is only one reference system for critical listening… So why even bother with Audirvana in such a scenario? (rhetorical question) I understand where you have gone with your system…
You asked
I have a lot of rooms?
…
Not relevant to Audirvana Studio audiophiles like myself that have other systems in other rooms that are just back-ground noise-makers in practicality, and use a dedicated reference playback system for critical listening
Well obviously we can’t all aspire to be a “audiophile like you “ critical listening and all………I’ll just scrape by and fake it.
The hope and promise for Audirvāna was a computer running in one room controlled by the remote app (otherwise why would we need a remote app) distributing quality results to several different devices that Audirvāna recognize on the network. I’m missing the plot if that’s not how it’s supposed to work ( but it doesn’t ) If you only need one station good on you and the usb connection but please stop trying to convince me/us that network playback is a horrible compromise, your hearing and equipment is obviously far superior to a regular human being. Those of us with standard hearing and kit will just have to get by.
Have a good evening @Agoldnear , ttul
Damn that’s an epiphany right there Audirvāna is too good for me, food for thought. Perhaps I should delete my 3.5 I use with a usb cable to my headphones rig………Hummm 
2 Likes
…
Spare us the BS…
Apparently Audirvana is a UPnP “Media Renderer” and is not designed as a “Media Server”… So there-in lay the rub regarding dissatisfaction with it being employed as a server to multiple end points.… Audirvana is designed to provide the highest level of audio-file playback on a computer platform like the Apple products that support it… Audirvana sound-quality will be compromised if it is dumbed-down to “do all things for everybody”.
I never said that networked audio when configured properly will not provide a high level of sound-quality… To the contrary, AVB and Dante networks are being employed in some of the best recording venues in the world…
I’ll be your huckleberry
Well I guess I’m back to Roon then. I had let my sub lapse. And resubbed for a month to check out if Roon works with my new set. With which I’m very happy with. And it does. I’m very likely going back to a years sub again. Not just because of this, but Roon itself as “media center” works for me as well. AS does too. And yes, I do see Studio as a media center.
Real shame that Audirvana doesn’t support Chromecast. Not all of us are into the “audiophile critical listening business”. And assuming that supporting it will degrade the SQ is an assumption. Not proven.
Supporting stuff like Chromecast and AirPlay might even benefit Audirvana in the long run, as it could attract more customers. Because I don’t believe a company can survive if there are only a handful of “audiophiles” who use Studio/Origin.
But hey that’s just me. I’ll go back to my 24/96 maxed out system which sounds perfect to me, and enjoy using it what it was designed for. To listen to music.
5 Likes
I understand your position…
I really wonder how many ChromeCast Audio devices are out there as compared to AirPlay capable devices…? If we are talking about potential user base priorities, Apple Inc. and AirPlay would seem to cover a whole bunch of users at all levels of audio appreciation, that can sustain Audirvana into the future for many years to come… Doing something well and high-quality, is a winning strategy,… Rather than compromising and doing something to appease a narrow demographic segment of users or the widest demographic of users… Apple Inc. is a shining example of the winning dogma of relative excellence in design… If “good enough” is the benchmark for audio playback quality, then Apple Music and the Apple audio hardware ecosystem has it covered.
To be honest I have no idea what the ratio ChromeCast/AirPlay capable devices is. I’ve never looked into it. It sounds more like Google VS Apple when it comes to that.
But if Audirvana could pull it off of having it’s SQ transferred to ChromeCast and AirPlay that would be a win-win for all of us. We all have good SQ and Audirvana a larger customer base. So a higher and more steady income.
1 Like
…
As an Apple user, wouldn’t you rather have an Apple device… say an AppleTV 4k that supported Dolby Atmos music?
I don’t use my TV that much to be honest. I’m usually always busy with my MacBook Pro, so I’ll put HBO Max, Amazon Prime, Apple TV or a movie/series on my external hard drive on the connected screen.
In the living room where my MacBook Air resides I generally listen to music only. So I don’t feel the need to buy an Apple TV.
When it comes to Dolby Atmos. I prefer good old stereo. I have a Harman Kardon 5.1 receiver in the living room. But when I use that, just 2.1 stereo sounds way better than using one of its 5.1 surround offerings. 
It’s excellent for watching a bluray or dvd movie, but for music 5.1 sucks.
…
Well AppleTV 4k is probably not a solution for pure audio playback… An AirPlay capable network player DAC would be a better choice, I believe the macOS can stream to multiple AirPlay devices simultaneously
1 Like