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.
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.
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!
What do you mean? This is the same thing that happened to the version 3.2 when 3.5 came out. There were still few bug fixes to the 3.2 version after that. They even implemented the new login procedure for Tidal in 3.2.
That’s just what happens when new version comes out. The old one goes into maintenance mode.
Maybe a solution that would satisfy many current 3.5 users, and generate a revenue always preferable to a flight of customers to pastures new, would be for Manuel and Damien to consider releasing a version 4 of Audirvana that would offer the same sound benefits as Audirvana Studio, but limited to a local files Library.
This could of course be announced as the last version of Audirvana.
This would placate those who feel betrayed or cheated by the perceived underhand fashion the inception of Audirvana Studio has unfolded.
After all, Audirvana 3.5 users have clearly suffered a lack of support in the face of many unresolved bugs, because Audirvana’s Team had focused their efforts on the new software.
I would find it unfair if nothing was done to compensate them for that.
Qui êtes vous pour avoir réponse à tout et défendre Audirvana quoi qu’il en soit ?
Le Zorro d’audirvana cachée sous un pseudo ?
Le Mr je sais tout, commun à tous les forums ?
Uhh Zorro, I like that. 
I just like Audirvana, it works well for me. I’m not keen on subscriptions though, but ultimately it’s only about money.
I would consider a subscription to a much cheaper, local files only player. That’s all I want and the first developer that gives it to me will have a loyal customer for a long time. I don’t even want “assistance” with metadata as what I experienced with Roon was that I ended up having to clean up the mess they created by replacing my already correct metadata with incorrect.
In order for it to be cost effective, it would have to be $30 a year at most and even that may be too high. Bluntly, I won’t pay more for any subscription software unless it’s making me money. Audirvana has become a big part of my music experience, but it’s by no means necessary for me to enjoy my music. Everything I listen to I have physical copies of, so switching back to CD and vinyl exclusively won’t be a big deal.
In a subscription-based model for productivity tools, software companies improve the productivity level so that subscribers can perform their jobs better with more efficiency. It’s a win/win situation because subscribers get paid for doing their jobs well.
And when the subscribers no longer need to use the software because their job doesn’t require it anymore, they stop the subscription because the productivity tool is not required. It’s also a win/win because subscribers save money by canceling the subscription.
Audirvana is a computer music player and nothing more. Supposedly, the subscriber paid the subscription fees and enjoyed the “Kernal streaming” and the “upsampling” technologies for the first two years because there were improvements in the sound quality due to a better “upsampling” algorithm. That is $138 ($69 x2 assuming no price increase on the 2nd year) paid so far. Then in the third year, Audirvana maxed out on the algorithm to improve the sound quality any further. Now, the subscribers will ask themselves, “Why am I still paying the subscription fee when there is no further improvement?”
Here is the dilemma. Suppose the subscribers decide that paying more subscription fees is not worth it because there is no improvement in sound quality. In that case, Audirvana cut the subscribers off from using the computer music player due to nonpayment AFTER receiving $138 for it.
The biggest stumbling block for Audirvana charging a monthly subscription fee is that there are no continuing “added” benefits, like new music/video content to enjoy or new productivity tools to improve your job that generate income. If you don’t pay your subscription fee after five years and $345 spent (assuming no price increase), you lost the right to use a PC music player you paid $345 in total!
The thought of it is outrageous. So, I have to ask myself, as a v3.5 licensed owner, the following question. “Why would I want to spend a $49.99 subscription fee to try out Audirvana Studio, knowing that I could get stuck with a perpetual payment scheme for a sound quality that may not get any better after the first few years?”
In a nutshell, Audirvana Studio may be a better music player than V3.5, but it comes with a caveat that the moment you stop paying your subscription fee, no matter how long you’ve been paying for it, you lost the privilege to use it pronto.
I’m not sure I understand your problem… I use Airfoil to stream Audirvana to several rooms in my house. At least on my older Mac Pro, Airfoil and Audirvana play VERY well together. Is there some reason why you need Damien’s software to do it all for you?
Exacto!, el pago de una suscripción para archivos locales no tiene sentido para muchos. La opcion de nuevas versiones sin la funcionalidad que pretenden sumarle a la versión Studio seria bienvenida y mantendría a muchos clientes satisfechos que estan dispuestos a pagar una licencia de renovación cada par de años. Imaginese que Roon ofrecira una promoción en este momento de $70 el primer año!, dejaría a Audirvana fuera del juego… Saludos
It’s but one of a few uncompleted or buggy features. It should be integrated.
Correct. Still no way to connect the music to endpoints.
This is exactly what I wanted out of Roon.
Pay for all the extra features? Fine…
But what I want it to do is read all of MY METADATA TAGS and nothing else.
Then show me results based on my tags.
Is that so hard without having to impose all your own info onto my local library?
Doing that on all the streamed content is fine, but my own files? Just no.
We will see where this goes… I ma just end up managing everything at the folder level and using something horrifically simple like VLC to play my FLAC files. DSF? Well…
I have been giving a go with Colirbri (Mac only) and it is great, but it is a player only. Does not manage or sort your library in any way. Drag - drop - play. But the SQ is awesome, the UI is pretty slick and it plays everything. Maybe give it a shot. It was like $5 on the MacOS App Store.
Have you ever rented a House ?
There is an awful lot of debate about a product NO ONE has seen yet. The presentation on Sunday didn’t really show any of the screenshots or features .
As a 3.5 Owner we’ll get around 6 weeks to put it through its paces before having to pay. Even if we subscribe for a month worth just to get a longer/better view of the new improved version that’s not the end of the world. And then it will be $50 for the first year.
Hi Fi is an expensive hobby , $50 is what some people blow on a USB Cable , often significantly more.
What we haven’t seen yet is will there be a “Perpetual License” on offer should you decide to bail. There needs to be clarification on a fall back position should you stop subscribing. I am under no illusions with Roon – No Pay No Service . We don’t know that (Yet) for AS maybe @Antoine could comment
That certainly would address the fears above of having paid for something you finally end up with nothing !!
I don’t think you can compare a house rental with paying a software subscription fee.
We are debating a one-time license fee payment with a subscription-based fee payment. If you pay a $96 one-time license fee to use v3.5, you can use it forever until the software no longer works with the latest Windows OS update, and Audirvana no longer supports it. A subscription-based model will require you to keep paying a monthly fee to use it. Even if you have spent more than $96 in total subscription fee and stop the subscription, you lose the right to use the software. How can you use this comparison and apply it to house rentals? You can’t.
You have to compare Audirvana fee structure with other computer music players out there. And most of them, like iTunes and Foobar2000, are free. In other words, computer music and video players are generally either free or charged a nominal one-time fee.
Turning Audirvana into subscription fee-based software implies that Audirvana technology is far superior to other computer music players that it deserves a monthly payment to use it. Is it that great to justify that kind of perpetual monthly payment? Why can’t I pay a one-time fee and then use it for years until I want to pay for the next major upgrade? That is the discussion.