Looking what is on offer if I have to go on subscription probably will opt for Roon. A bit more expensive but you get so much more. So fed up with all these software changes and the fact that companies are moving to subscription models. Iâve decided to finally go for a dedicated server/streamer and say goodbye for good to computer as a media storage and playback unit.
2 Likes
With Roon you get more features and less sound quality.
Matt
I can only speak for my own circumstance, but any difference in sound quality between Audirvana and Roon is almost undetectable in my system. Itâs not as if itâs like the difference you would get if upgrading from an entry level hifi system to one costing a few thousand pounds. How would you define âless qualityâ Matt? They both sound pretty great to me. Iâm interested to see what the Audirvana Studio experience (as opposed to SQ) will provide, but as things stand at the moment, for an overall experience Roon wins hands down for me.
1 Like
Depuis ne semaine, je suis ce forum, et de ma connaissance, je nâai jamais vu un lancement aussi ratĂ©.
Vous prenez vos clients en otage. et câest du racket.
Jâutilise pour mon job des logiciels sous forme dâabonemment, mais ce sont des logiciels de productivitĂ©, donc qui me rapportent de lâargent et in fine ce sont mes clients qui payent.
Je vais donner un exemple de société Italienne qui me fournit un logiciel et qui elle a tout compris.
- On achÚte une licence perpétuelle (possibilité de tester avec une version light)
- Durant lâannĂ©e en cours, les mises Ă jours sont incluses.
- Chaque année ils ressortent une nouvelle version, avec de réelles modifications et fonctionnalités en plus. ( durant 30 jours cette version est remisée à 50% pour les anciens clients).
- Le client qui veut upgrader, le fait ou pas, mais la version précédente fonctionne à vie, sans mises à niveau évidemment .
@Damien je me souviens dâune interview ou vous disiez:
- les mises Ă jours dâAudirvana seront toujours incluses dans lâachat de la license, sauf si un jour nous amenons de grosses modifications et nous demanderons une participation financiĂ©re (ce qui me semble logique)âŠdonc nous y sommes.
*vous ne tenez pas votre parole et vous transformez la participation financiĂšre en abonnement âŠvous devriez faire de la politique.
3 Likes
Moins de qualitĂ© sonore avec Roon, câest une blague 
Je connais lâimporteur du Roon Nucleus et nous avons testĂ© AUDIRVANA et ROON sur des installations Ă 400 000 ⏠et Ă moins dâavoir des oreilles dâepagneul breton, aucune diffĂ©rence en Ă©coute Ă lâaveugle
2 Likes
Je nâai pas constatĂ© non plus de diffĂ©rence de qualitĂ© sonore entre Audirvana et Roon sur mon systĂšme et Roon offre tellement plus pour un mĂ©lomane !
Bref, je suis passĂ© Ă Roon avant mĂȘme lâannonce de la sortie dâAudirvana Studio âŠ
(Iâm sure some of these points have been made before so Iâll apologise in advance).
@Antoine - I feel the need to chime in with a perspective that may help the Audirvana team understand the discourse within the forum in reaction to the announcement that newer versions of the software will only be available through software subscription and not as a perpetual licence.
Consider what ways can be found to enable Audirvana to retain the vocal promoters of the software that will not move to a subscription based software licensing model (so become detractors) and enable a new group of consumers that Audirvana believe will be unlocked by offering the software via monthly payment.
Subscription licensing model came about to offer businesses (not individuals) a way of only paying for the software needed, easily enabling the volume of licenses to be scaled up/down to meet changing business need so ensure business costs are minimised. This model was extended as a method to pay for services in addition to the software (such as support & maintenance contracts or hosting services). A key point here is that the software being purchased forms part of a value chain necessary for the business to profitably provide its products/services.
Today software must be packaged to match the demands of consumers, significant revenue can be lost when business decisions are made without proper market research providing clear view of user needs.
Subscription based software products have to warrant the monthly subscription fee through offering additional capabilities and/or services for this strategy to be successful. (e.g. Adobe, Autodesk, MicrosoftâŠ.). This is different to subscription based services such as Netflix, Tidal where the subscription cost is justified by the ever changing content library the subscription provides access to.
Software delivered on a subscription basis does provide the vendor with a regular revenue stream and needs to provide additional services to the consumer over and above that of the software itself to warrant the increased cost. Microsoft Office can be purchased as a perpetual licence or by subscription. With a subscription you get access to Microsoft cloud based services and some additional software (these are the additional âvalueâ that the subscription offers over a perpetual license). The cost of paying for just under 5 years of subscription fees equate to the cost of a perpetual license.
Please think again, undertake additional research to understand target market and the generally acceptable licensing strategies acceptable to them. Why not have two licensing models, a perpetual licence and a subscription?
If Audirvana are intent on only offering newer software by subscription then that gap will be filled by another product and maybe Iâll set up a team to do it 
Kind regards,
Paul (a retired CTO)
16 Likes
Tried them both and couldnât tell the difference. For me was down to futures and the fact that Audirvana was one off payment. I didnât need multi room or dsp.
2 Likes
I also chose Roon but could be pulled back into Audirvana.
The sound quality differences are currently negligible in my system.
Roon obviously has much more development resources and better technical support.
Roonâs UI is a generation beyond any other software I have used in that technical details such as the graphical signal path/quality level is shown with the same ease as the musical artistâs biography.
3 Likes
Iâm a lifetime subscriber of Roon, also. Tomorrow I will give AV a shot. Maybe it will be a very pale comparison to Roon, maybe it will be far superior. I wonât know til I try, and gonna go in with a totally open mind.
3 Likes
Hi Damien,
Just a question relating to version 3.5. I see that licenses for v.3.5 are no longer being sold. Can I assume that active development/maintenance for this product has ceased?
Iâm not sure why SQ would get any better. If Audirvana had it within them, why did they not deliver that better sound quality already. Were they holding back?
Maybe not enhancements, but I expect a company to fix bugs for maybe 5 years after eolâing the product) . In any case, it seems that Audirvana has been working on Audirvana Studio for some time (apparently at the expense of fixing bugs in 3.5). If they were not going to support 3.5, they should have eolâed 3.5 long ago, i.e. when development on Audirvana Studio began.
4 Likes
Respectfully, this is crap.
253 (and counting!) comments and not a lot of positive comments on this new version of Audirvana. If there are any positive comments, I canât find them.
I donât use streaming services, I have a large collection of lossless music I listen to and while it sounds good, Audirvana is rudimentary when it comes to managing metadata and playlists. Iâve asked for improvements in this area for years and if anything, 3.5 was a regression in terms of local music management.
I like paying for software that I use.
I hate subscriptions and wonât be subscribing to whatever Audirvana Studio is.
added: I am very disappointed in this move.
10 Likes
Iâm not sure why SQ would get any better.
Audirvana Studio has a better Windows kernel mode streaming. I am most anxious to hear it.
With respect, this is unrealistic for a small company like Audirvana. And it is not even realistic to expect continued support of an old version (3.5) when a new version is released (4, if a perpetual use model had been continued), or in lieu of this, the subscription-based Audirvana Studio.
I see no SQ improvements for Mac though.
Matt
Mr DAMIEN MACRON, ici les gilets jaunes !
Revoyez votre programme !!!
2 Likes
Is Audirvana Studio going to be available to trial from midnight tonight, or is it going to be at some undisclosed time during day time on Sunday?
2 Likes
Iâm not against subscriptions when it makes sense. For Audirvana, thereâs doubt. Because this is a software which always evolved at a slow pace, slowly fixing bugs, even more slowly fixing the UI. Switching to a subscription could make sense if that means weâre totally changing the way the software is developed, with a bigger team, specialised people in UI, network, streaming service integrations, etc.
The live presentation just gave a look to a new version, like it was Audirvana 4. Not like a new product with a different development cycle.
Maybe itâs just a communication issue. Hopefully it is.
I donât care about radios or streaming services, I donât use them and donât plan to. And Iâm happy with the current sound quality of Audirvana on my Mac (Iâm always open to be positively surprised of course). But thatâs very personal.
To me, Audirvana needs a much better UI and it seems weâre getting to it, if itâs smooth, efficient, not bulky as before, less buggy, thatâs already great. It also needs a better remote (I often to switch on/off AU plug-ins, change the volume limit, and itâs just not available right now on the remote). Last but not least, because thatâs the most important point for me, it needs a much better UPnP integration. And if to get this done we need to switch to a subscription model, with the UI getting tweaked and improved regularly, new functionalities, maybe editorial partnerships allowing us to find infos, artworks about albums, I can seriously consider it (although the price is a bit high for me⊠but Iâm considering it anyway).
But we just donât know. I suppose there will be more communication soon, I canât imagine someone in the team wonât address the user baseâs concerns, but before that, itâs safe to try that new software first before coming to conclusions.
But we can see instead of generating hype, it generated doubts, concerns, resentment⊠itâs time to convince !
3 Likes