Audirvana Studio and What it Means for Audirvana 3.5 Users

I have no problem with a 8GB 10 year old windows desktop running windows 10 with asio thesycon drivers even at DSD512 and 32/768k PCM. Without even gigabit internet. Signal over wifi to computer, usb to dac, controller audirvana/tidal hifi with phone.

As ive told a lot of people, check a few different cables until one works and check your computer settings and Amarra has no shortage of bugs either from what ive read and doesnt sound as good which is why people come to audirvana in the first place. The sound.

That was meant as a reply to the post above mine.

I am currently trying Amarra (only checking the sound). Not bad but not my type compared to Audirvana. I will keep on comparing for the trial period as many
sound adjustments exists, but right now my feeling is that I might well stick to Audirvana for a while. Anyway, I had not planned to change a thing before the announcement of Studio, as I was happy - so, I’ll act like Studio does not exist (as I am not into paying another subscription), and in a few months I’ll check what’s new on the market. So far, so good (but this subscription scheme, gosh…)


Thanks for the response Mike.
Yeah I’m aware of Jim’s reluctance (read refusal) to incorporate a ‘streaming’ solution to JRiver. I believe this is a moneytary issue?
Such a shame. As I’ve mentioned previously I found JRiver to be FAR more stable and reliable than Audirvana, and JRemote wasn’t too shabby.
I honestly believe he’s missing a trick, especially if he were to visit this forum and see the general disdain that a fair few users are now displaying against Audirvanas blatant money-grab and seeming refusal to listen to existing paying customers problems. I never in all my years using JR (probably about 10) experienced a situation where an update actually made the software WORSE, pretty much unusable, as 3.5.45 has. I’m reasonably certain that if I had, a solution would have been forthcoming as JR appear to actually care about their customers.
I have tried mConnect but in all honesty didn’t really like the interface. This solution may have to suffice in the short term however as there doesn’t appear to be that many alternatives out there.
Cheers mate.

I believe the statement was that those who purchased recently would have the purchase price applied to a subscription (while still being able to use 3.5 as far as I can tell).

1 Like

It’s a bit fragmented at the moment - a complete how-to for Catalina, plus a discussion of how to make this work with Big Sur:

I’ve spent far too much time thinking about it since Sunday and for me and my brain (and for maybe others) it will be best to treat 3.5 and Studio as two separate products.

I’ve spent almost two months trialing Audirvana in various configurations and between three computers (that’s how I got two months, it resets with each new computer). Everything from uPnP between floors into my Oppo BDP105D (nope! sounded and worked like junk) to wired everything (smooth but too much hassle) to ultimately a system where my computer pulls in Tidal through Audirvana wirelessly but a USB cable does run to my DAC (Topping D90/non MQA, latest Thesycon ASIO drivers, Windows 10, 8GB ram on a 10 year old tower). I run everything at DSD512 and sometimes PCM 768k without hassles. I also needed to try a few different cables around my house until everything just worked and there were no pops, stalls, track skipping etc.

I am going to buy 3.5 before Sunday before I can’t buy it anymore since it is all I actually want and need at the moment and because Audirvana will let recent purchasers translate the full purchase amount into Studio subscription credit. I will use the credit until it runs out at which choice I will decide whether Studio is worth it to me or not. It will definitely have to knock my socks off in performance and user experience. But I will always have 3.5 whether it is improved upon or not. It seems like small consolation to some recent and longtime users but they don’t HAVE to offer this credit. At the end of the day, it is technically two different products. I appreciate the opportunity. And they shouldnt offer the credit to everybody. If youve been using it for more than a few months or years, you know how good you have had it in a world like audio when improvements to sound aren’t cheap.

I get it from both sides. It seems like just an update on the surface so why isn’t it free or almost free for “lifetime” purchasers? Because it’s two different products. And they have decided to put more effort into one over the other. Companies do this all the time.

Firstly, the rollout of Studio has been terrible. Saying it’s been clunky is being nice. A freelance PR firm for a few bucks for a one time rollout could have offered some sage advice. Language aside, because that doesn’t matter, how do you not demo the product or run movies of the product being demoed on a Windows computer, an Intel Mac and a M1 Mac? How do you not have demos ready to go for the launch? “Trust us, it’s better! Look how nice it looks! Hey, internet radio that your core and nobody else cares about!” when there are a lot of choices out there doesn’t exactly set the wallet on fire. It will be interesting to see how many NEW people sign up.

Also I find that older people, especially over 40s (I am 46), HATE subscriptions. Read your room a bit. Now this is just another one. Adobe, Pro Tools, Slate Audio, your phone, your car if you lease it, everything is a subscription now and we are being force fed more and more every day that everything is becoming a utility, not an item. We and older generations like to have stuff and own stuff and be able to sell stuff when we dont want it anymore or it starts piling up or better stuff comes along. Younger people have adapted and many are fine with not owning or not wanting as much clutter as much as their parents did. But it never feels like anything is yours. I bet you if you offered a 299 or 499 USD lifetime version of Studio some people (not me, I like 3.5) would buy it just so they could say they own it and are choosing to support the company in that way.

The subscription model has been successful for a lot of people. Otherwise EVERY SOFTWARE COMPANY wouldnt be moving towards it and some people need to justify their effort in improving a product. Audirvana has reached that point. So they have made, in my mind, a new product called Studio. If I don’t like it, I will always have 3.5 and that’s good enough for me.

It is fair to say that 3.5 is buggy but it isn’t buggy for me anymore. Every setup, system and use is different. Hopefully Studio will be better, and especially hopefully, not worse. But at least it’s a subscription that you can jump off of any time.


I am a 50 year old, been a computer engineer most of my adult life. Operating systems always update features, security patches and updates. The amount of times I have seen operating system updates cause problems with outdated software…
Audirvana have done a lot of incremental updates to fix these issues,
CEO said they would support and not let down 3.5 version, but driving force with be to focused on Studio. But also went onto say subscription better deal for customers because Damien found it hard to keep concentration what he was working on , and update software at same time.
CEO also said that it pushes us to keep software working, because customers have choice to stop subscription!!
So the main priority for Damien’s to keep studio software current and working, without bugs! Not 3.5 which you already paid for!

A lot of people still have issues with streaming after a windows update 6 weeks ago! Damien updated with a incremental fix, Still lots of people logging calls having issues with streaming, including me, but have not had any fix!

1 Like

I found and purchased Audirvana when Roon jacked their prices in an attempt to push users to their subscription model. Now, about a year later, I find myself staring down a very similar situation. As yet another user that does not stream and will not stream, I feel I’m losing support for a product I purchased in good faith far too soon.

Sure, I can continue to use what I have (in theory and likely only for so long), but there will be no more updates. In fact, as I sit here thinking about it, this would explain why there haven’t been any big updates since I purchased. Not really instilling me with much confidence that my 69.99 a year will bring me any big updates and if streaming is the focus of this new model, it likely won’t bring updates that I care about.

Audirvana really seemed to be the solution for people that wanted to play their own music, not what happens to be made available on some streaming service. Very disappointed in this new direction.


Thought we were getting to play with Studio before launch on Sunday? @Damien2

Couldn’t move this it is not a response to you personally

The chance of keeping 3.5 actively updated is a pipe dream. Even with the best Source Control systems and an architecture that supports it , why should a company put time and effort into a product they are no longer selling (i.e. no income stream) at the expense of a currently developing system that brings in an income stream.

Almost every piece of software these days has some sort of Annual bit to it, Audirvana is an anomaly.

I spent many years as an active (amateur) developer and was a “Tool Freak” , almost every one of these had an annual input . (Whole Tomato, Red Gate , Jet Brains etc) Resharper has been mentioned above.

Even in the audio realm, JRiver launch a new “Version” every year , even with a few new “features” it still builds on the previous version it could easily carry on as V27 with ever increasing builds and still reach the same end point. This is an annual payment by any other name. Roon on the other hand went a twofold route with Lifetime to raise initial capital. I would be highly surprised if Lifetime will still be available on a years time leaving just an annual and monthly subscription (ring any bells)

Like it or not subscriptions are a thing of NOW , Tidal, Spotify, Deezer, Netflix , Amazon etc, fight it as you may the concept of a regular income stream to keep a company viable seems to me to be a viable model. After all I pay everything else in my life monthly (Insurance, Rates, Mortgages, Water bills, Power bills) why should by music software and streaming service be any different.

The absolute cost is almost irrelevant , everyone’s income stream is different everyone’s priorities too. The standard quote “its only a Starbucks coffee a day” comes to mind.

I ask the question why shouldn’t Audirvana set up a business model that provides them with an ongoing income. Every other company strives towards that. Ownership is a fast approaching thing of the past.

All the commentary about “Buggy software” etc is almost irrelevant. If the product doesn’t suit your needs don’t buy it. I don’t eat Heinz Baked Beans because they contain too much sugar does that necessarily make them bad for the rest of the world…

Rant Over


Three years ago I purchased a lifetime membership to Roon for about £375 which looking at the cost now seems like a bargain. Giving lifetime memberships for software is not really a good business model as the developers would prefer a steady income to constantly make improvements and make the user experience more rewarding. I will give Audirvana Studio a try and possibly pay for the first year to see how the developers respond to user feedback regarding software bugs etc. At the end of the day software will live and die according to developer support. Also finding good Hi-res music software that delivers is as rare as Hens teeth so when you find it you may have to accept it’s going to cost you money for a yearly fee. Just my opinion.


The monthly payment model is part of your lifestyle, but not everyone is the same or agree with it.

Tidal, Spotify, Deezer, Netflix and Amazon are music providers and can understandably charge for that.
Room provides a curation service and a decent sound. Admittedly not perfect, but well presented, their case for subscription is less defensible.

As for Audirvana, it has only been undisputedly successful at the provision of a uniquely compelling sound for their users’ music. Most of their attempts at the rest have so far come across as half baked, or buggy, if always well meaning.

Audirvana Studio may be a different thing, more akin to Roon, we shall see.

In another post I conjectured if it would not be wiser for Audirvana to license their sound expertise to one or several established streaming services. The user base would increase tremendously, allowing the licensing to be absorbed in the monthly subscription of the streaming service adopting the Audirvana module in its player.

Besides, I cannot help thinking that Audirvana’s £6.49 monthly subscription fee suggests that their user base is quite niche indeed. I chuckle when I compare this with the £10 Adobe Photography service with which I can make money…


Bought 3.5 licence 12 months ago. I subscribe to Qobuz for streaming. A few irritating bugs, but tolerable. What is the advantage of the subscription deal? I don’t think I understand it.


Well, users wanted radios. There are also the podcasts, there is automated metadata tagging based on the sonic signature. That all costs money.

The advantage for the user is that the new features can be rolled in as soon as they’re ready, without waiting for the next major release. You can also exit whenever you think Audirvana is not delivering sufficient value.

Hola Demian, soy usuario de Audirvana hace ya varios años, he pagado licencia y he renovado licencia de nuevas versiones, he contribuido con correcciones de traducción es sus nuevas versiones. Audirvana siempre ha sido la mejor opción “menos cara” para los amantes del HiFi por que no significaba una suscripción mensual obligatoria. El cambio a suscripción, abandonando el soporte a tus actuales clientes, sin duda iba a ser mal recibido, pero es comprensible que el modelo de negocio tenga que actualizarse para avanzar… Mi sugerencia seria que hagan un desarrollo alternativo de un software que no sea de suscripción mensual sino de licencia pero que no tenga las "virtudes de la version de suscripción. Por ejemplo si la version de suscripción tiene radio, o funcionalidades como las de Roon de Metadata y recomendaciones, que un usuario pueda escoger si esas funcionalidades le son necesarias o no. Yo en lo particular no creo que opte por una suscripción en un software que para mi uso no requiere de funcionalidades online, de ser asi lamentablemente tendre que ver y pensar en otras alternativas. Saludos cordiales desde Costa Rica.

1 Like

Thank you for your reply. I don’t get the radio bit, though.

I expect that I’ll stay where I am, until 3.5 falls into disrepair and/or my OS moves beyond it.

Pulling a curated list of radio stations and podcasts costs money. I don’t know which service they’re using, but even the vTuner is no longer free.

Same goes for the automated metadata tagging.

And why doesn’t Damien make a strong offer to his look time supporters? Give them the financial support they deserve.

1 Like

There will be no technical support for 3.5. You’ll have to live with the current bug’s and any new ones. That’s not what we l paid for!