I’ve seen that the application contacts wikidata.org, so maybe that’s the source?
2 Likes
I have checked the MusicBrainz site.
It seems that Audirvana returns the information displayed in the Artist Information on top right side of the artist page. Not much is available in that section, apart from Date of Birth and Date of Death.
There is some biography displayed but it stems mainly from articles in Wikipedia, to which a link is provided.
This may be built up over time, but it still looks in its infancy at the moment.
Like many other online database services, they need the users (Us!) to fill up the gaps, which is done painstakingly, over time.
The curation of such data is fraught at the best of times, as different people curate the information in the different ways that suits them.
2 Likes
Yes it seems to be Wikidata.org. It is in different languages and the bios description is the same as in AS.
This site is queried by artist name. AS is of course depending on a correct tag in the metadata with the artist name. If this is a bit different (spelling or format) than the name in Wikidata.org the bios probably will not be found.
So the Musicbrainz_trackId is not used for this, probably mbzId is only used for querying tag information.
Cheers, must have missed that.
So I just received a marketing email from Audirvana pushing the new remote app. Went to the iOS App Store but the only remote there for Audirvana is the old one last updated a year ago. Am I missing something? Is the name different or something?
No they are just teasing us.
You miss nothing.
Damien said a few days ago that the new remote will be released within a few weeks.
Thats… bizarre… seems to be a disconnect between marketing and reality…
I didn’t mean that Damien did everything. But he is at the head of the development team. He gives the final approval for the decisions that are made. It doesn’t matter if it was another developer who wrote the code regarding the display of the bios.
I think so too. Perhaps Damien had some help before the initial release but it seems now he is all on his own, just like it was with 3.5.
1 Like
The GUI flaws (in WIndows) have been driving me crazy since 3.5.
1 Like
It looks like Musicbrainz gets its artist bios from Wikipedia. Can somebody compare the bios displayed in Studio with Wikipedia?
As an aside, the bios found at AllMusic are way better than Wikipedia:
Damien should have used that. I know that Roon uses AllMusic for much of its extra info. Maybe AllMusic is pricey?
1 Like
I wasn’t on the forum for the release of A3.5.
If he is alone to patch all the gaps and to fix all the bugs, it will take him a long time to get the player usable. 
I was thrilled to listen to the sound quality of Studio, and it is the only reason I’m here, but I couldn’t listen yet to a single tune at optimal conditions, because a bug prevents SysOp to function on Intel Macs on Big Sur.
The problem for many years has been that many bugs never gets fixed. Instead, new features are being implemented (and more bugs) to attract new users.
4 Likes
From the musicbrainztrack_id, you find the musicbrainzartist_id, which has the Wikipedia bios.
Musicbrainz has an API available for developers.
1 Like
last.fm scrobbling when
also despite the hipdac being an MQA renderer its not counted as one
and some issues in the gapless playback on qobuz
It’s a forum that admins don’t read, I don’t know why we’re writing. Leave the forum right now…
First-impressions of Studio vs. 3.5 Plus:
From what I can see, Studio is just a re-skin of the previous Plus version and I actually find it less intuitive. Font and icons are too small and it lacks any kind of theme whatsoever. It’s just white font on black background or visa-versa. Very underwhelming.
The only extra feature is the radio none-sense. I actually lost my Tidal playlists in the Studio version, which won’t display for whatever reason.
I would really appreciate it if someone could explain the differences between Studio and Plus, especially if those changes are under the hood, because the more noticeable revisions are trivial at best (and actually a step backwards in some cases).
All in all, not only does this “upgrade” not warrant a subscription service, but it doesn’t even deserve to stand alone as its own product. This should be version 4.0 to Audirvana Plus’ current version 3.5, a free update for current customers. New users would then have the same option to purchase the software outright for $100 like I did just a few months ago.
6 Likes
But if its so similar, why did you buy it in the 1st place if you think its rubbish. You kind of contradict what your saying. I think its more of being slightly put out paying a while back. Plenty of videos all about the differences. Try watching one maybe?