Audirvana Studio Perpetual License

Hi all,

I was wondering why this application doesn’t have a perpetual/lifetime similar to Roon.

I am using the trial of Audirvana Studio to play my SACD ISO’s and it is absolutely fantastic.

The older version of Audirvana/Audirvana Plus wasn’t subscription based so this makes no sense. I am willing to pay for a perpetual license, but a subscription is simply too much.

Thanks,
Jayden

Because Audirvana decided to make Audirvana Studio subscription based. It makes perfect sense.

1 Like

The issue now is that you can’t buy the older version of Audirvana though, if this was an option I wouldn’t be annoyed.

Why would you be annoyed? You can still choose not to use Audirvana.

4 Likes

Yes, this seems like the plan – better off just purchasing Roon for $699.99 instead of paying for a subscription.

But Roon won’t play your ISO SATA disk images, and the $700 lifetime license will be useless for you.
So, you’ll better stick to AS or buy a player that supports ISO SATA.

I agree with this, this is the main reason why I want to stick with Audirvana, but there are plenty of FOSS SACD extractor tools.

Sure, it will be an extra step to extract DSD/DSF from SACD ISO’s but this bypasses having to pay for a subscription if the developer doesn’t want to implement this.

That’s what I did. I extracted the DSF tracks from the ISO SATA disk images, because many players do not support ISO SATA. In his way, I’m free to choose between more players.

You can get 10 years of Audirvana for $700. Add in the time value of your money, and you can probably get 11 years of Audirvana.

1 Like

And “lifetime” it’s just too expensive for regular people. And it’s stupid. Let’s say next year some things will broke and the player will not work as you want. Maybe yes, maybe no. If you have a “normal” license you can cancel and say bye bye. If you have “lifetime” for the price of a $$$ vacation, well… you must use the player, you paid a lot of money, maybe you made sacrifices so…
Or simply find a better solution, who knows? No, at least 10 years you MUST use AS because you paid and don’t want to waste your money, if you care for this…
But maybe Damien/Antoine will add this option, few rich customers with $$$ are always welcome.

Lifetime license makes no sense. Just think how much good music you can buy with it, and that you’ll enjoy all your life.

It will be better for Audirvana to sell a regular license of AS, like for the previous Audirvana players. Many people will buy it, regardless of bugs or other issues, because most people dislike subscriptions.
If it was possible, I would have bought immediately two licenses, one for me and one for a gift.

It has nothing to do with me.
I read tens, maybe hundreds, of posts on this site of users who are unhappy with subscription.
I don’t remember reading many posts, like yours, of subscription enthusiasts.

It’s a fact that you can not deny.

That’s true. I don’t. And @Jim_F don’t have to be upset, it’s our opinions, personal views.

For example probabily I would pay for a subscription to HQPlayer when I will have a powerful comp but never 240 euros - it’s just too expensive for a hobby imo, I mean for a player, no matter how the sound is. But a subscription of few bucks/month, oh yes, may be a solution.
Also, as has been told, a subsciption makes developers to be more active because clients can cancel anytime, the competition is bigger and this is just good for people, because only good products with good support will survive with the subscription model.
Of course this is still a niche so the process will be slower.

People who buy music are the best customers. They are used to paying for their players.
Most people who stream, use a free player.

A subscription model for a player that aims people who already pay a subscription to a streaming service, limits the potential number of customers.

As I said before, I don’t remember reading many posts of users that are happy with subscription.

Millions and millions of people stream with Apple Music, Spotify Amazon… and Tidal and Qobuz… and they all use free players.

What is the percentage that use a subscription player for that?
I don’t know, but it is probably very, very small.

On the other hand, people who listen to their files, buy their player. And most often more than one player.

Exactly. They already get a player, and that’s what they use to listen to the streaming service.

I don’t made/read a statistic but my opinion is:

People who buy music (I also bought some discs in the past) use a cd player or free players like foobar.

People who use DACs and a payable player are a niche compared to majority of users. People who stream are more and more because of lower prices, bigger content, other features. And if they care more about sq, like Qobuz and Tidal users, they will try AS, found sq better and pay the subscription. Unfortunately AS is still buggy, I have to keep both AS and Qobuz app.

There are many commercial players that do not offer streaming features.
Who buys them? Only people who have their own music…

The market for CDs is finished, except, for some extent, for albums of classical music. There are only few CD editions of new albums. It was replaced by online shops for digital tracks.

Otherwise, albums that are released on physical supports focus on sound quality demanding users who buy vinyls or SACDs. But even these users often buy digital tracks. And they need players to play their music.

All I want to do is enjoy my music, without paying for an additional subscription.

Even just a version without streaming would suffice for me.

People who buy music are the best customers. They are used to paying for their players.
Most people who stream, use a free player.

A subscription model for a player that aims people who already pay a subscription to a streaming service, limits the potential number of customers.

As I said before, I don’t remember reading many posts of users that are happy with subscription.

nigga

1 Like