Audirvāna Studio Trial Extension

I’ve run Audirvana and Roon on a dedicated Mac Mini for awhile. The sound quality of audirvana has been my preference but I generally go to Roon because the user experience for me is superior. I just completed the AS trial and did not buy because of the lack of remote. I too would like an extension to check out the remote. But what the heck I’ll probably subscribe anyway.

I’m sorry for you. Just too many talks. The developer seems to ignore us, at least for the moment. Was just my opinion. Use it or leave it, no offense. It’s a problem that works for me? It really works! And is just a trial, maybe a beta trial but a trial, you didn’t pay for AS. Or if subscribed I’m sorry for you.

Hi Jim

How are you running AS , Laptop / USB DAC ? or via a network feed to a DAC.

I suspect a direct USB connection will work fine , it did for me for my Audioquest Dragonfly Red connected directly to my server but completely failed , even to play , to my networked Cambridge Audio CXN.

I can understand the confusion but AS is being touted as a Audiophile Grade player and hence should be considered as a Network player to hi fi component streamers and hence to Hi Fi equipment , even if it can do a more “compact” set up.

To do this without a remote is not really practical, my server is several rooms away from my listening spot and I am less than quick on my feet I miss part of the album.

Each to his own …

Yes you are right Dgsly.
At least once a week, Damien should tell something about his efforts in improving AS. I am an user of Audirvana for more than 4 years, and now I am leaving the boat to join Roon

Please tell me something if you know. I know you are not Damien but…

Why my tracks are multiplied?

I use the latest version in win 10, changed the database location, even created a new empty db but the problem persist. Do you know any solution? Thanks!

PS: I didn’t wanted to start a new thread for this, if someone know…

There is already a thread for that problem.

Thank you. I did what is wrote there and still have the same problem, i deleted the duplicates and for the moment didn’t came back.
Another problem is that this is a very “sensible” software, or is about programming.
For example now it works very well and is stable, but if touch the settings and for whatever reasons AS is not compatible then BUM! - blue screen and restart. For example I tested some vst3 from izotope. The first - BUM - restart, the second - BUM, the third works etc. My computer is very stable even if it’s slow, wiorks 24/7 without crashes and no blue screens except AS. But let’s be fair - with actual settings it’s ok.

Hi @Antoine

A trial extension should automatically be provided to all users who have registered for AS because:

There is no remote app and we do not know when it will be released

We have been your Beta testers throughout the trial period, we have helped you improve your product with bug reports and feedback



Maybe you should tag him, @Antoine good point the one above

Damien will reward us our hard work with a free remote.
We will be authorized to keep it as a souvenir on our phone, even if we do not subscribe. :smiley:

If you have version 3.5, you’ll be using the new Remote even if you don’t subscribe to Audirvana Studio.

Hi bitracer,

I don’t have A3.5. I have A2.5.
A friend lent me his A3.5’s activation key a few days ago, so I could check the sound issues that @VoyagerDude reported in the bit-perfect thread.

I’ll start my trial when they add a column browser. Oh, wait, that apparently will never happen. It’s like a car company saying, “try our new wheel-less model!” Hard pass, for me!

Honestly, how hard can it possibly be to look at iTunes (Music) and simply take the parts of it that work well, while building in better sound, more file playback options, and more extensive metadata options?! That seemed to be the initial trajectory of Audirvana, five years ago, when I started using it.

I really still don’t understand why @Antoine felt the need to reinvent the wheel after version 3.2 and abandon all of us who enjoyed everything about that platform. 3.5 had better sound, but I couldn’t tolerate fighting with the interface constantly. Now, @Antoine AGAIN abandons his loyal user base, in order to AGAIN release a complete revamp of his software, which AGAIN further hampers and undermines basic music library management software functionality.

It also baffles me that I’m one of the only people who sees this omission as a major deal-breaker. Who on earth cares about how music playback software upsamples, if the user can’t even find the file they want to play?!

What is wrong with the Audirvana “development” team? I honestly don’t know that I have ever seen a business run in a more amateurish manner. This software has not been ready for prime time for at least its past two major releases. Get it together, @Antoine!!!

When you do, I’ll happily take that free trial. Until then, I’ll continue using 3.2.20, [mostly] hassle-free.


Why do you use A3.2? It sounds better than A3.5?

It has a column browser, located at the top of the interface, so it doesn’t block song info, unlike 3.5. It also doesn’t assume that, when the user clicks on another artist, in the browser, it means the user wishes to select both artists, unlike 3.5. This change, in 3.5, was obviously very cumbersome, when one has a large music library and wants to switch from, say Brian Eno to Thelonious Monk, or something along those lines. It is also very easy, when using 3.2, to select multiple artists/ albums, should one desire, by using the Command key, in MacOS.

Long story short, the only reason I abandoned 3.5 was that the UI was godawful and represented an unimaginable step backwards, in terms of functionality and user experience. After over a year of feeling like I was shouting into a void, trying to get responses to my many issues with the new software, I simply gave up and back-graded to 3.2.20, which I use [mostly] happily, to this day.

It makes up for what it lacks, in terms of sound, when compared with future releases, in basic functionality and overall user experience, especially if the user has a large, local music library, as I do.

Again, I just can’t imagine how someone looks at the most popular, widely used music library management and playback software on the planet and says “I’m going to design something that throws out both the good and the bad with this platform.” It just never ceases to boggle my mind.

1 Like

Thank you for your reply.
I’m an A2.5 user. I didn’t know that A3.2 had a column browser. I also consider that this is a very useful display mode for large libraries. I’m surprised to learn that this display mode existed in earlier versions of A3 and was abandoned in later versions.

1 Like

So AS displays the same album twice when it’s coming from different sources (streaming and local), as opposed to letting the user choose which preferred source to use for that album?

That’s simply terrible. And you still wanna say it works perfectly?

No, he has no local music at all. He has two sources, because he subscribed both to Tidal and Qobuz. That’s why he has all his albums in double.

Yeah but on Roon you can select your Primary album so you only see one album. There is also a function that allows you to select “Version”, and that then shows all versions of the album available which you can select to play as a one off, or lets you select a different Primary version if you so choose. It sometimes shows half a dozen or more because it lists all version on the streaming services , eg 16 bit, 24 bit, MQA, and it also shows local version if you have one. I’m sure Audirvana could integrate this function. (sorry if you know all this)

1 Like

It’s a very interesting feature. I’m not a Roon user, so I didn’t know it.
I don’t stream, but I have many albums in different formats, different re-matreings, different editions… Having them all grouped together would be nice.

In addition, when I tried Roon, a few years ago, it had another feature that I liked. It was displaying on the cover of each album, what was its format and resolution. ith AS, I see a rips of CD and of a SACD of the same album with the same cover, and the only way for me to know which is what is to open one of the albums in order to check.