they’re not enjoying roon for free, they paid 500$ for it.
Yeah, @Doudou. It sure did. If you can’t find a screenshot somewhere, I’ll send one from my desktop. That’s why I was gobsmacked that v3.5 would abandon such basic functionalities, in ways that were absolutely fixed; unchangeable in Preferences or anywhere else, when they were so blatantly a slap in the face to users of all versions of Audirvana before v3.5.
Also, not only did v3.2 have a column browser, it had an EXCELLENT one. The user could add as many different search filters as they liked. I stick with Artist and Album, personally, but it is possible to add as many as one wishes, which would seem especially useful for those with a lot of classical music.
@Antoine should read the above posts and think about the value of the feature he inexplicably left behind, in favor of the space interface, in v3.5.
Bitreacer,
I think that Roon’s lifetime license is too expensive. An audiophile can do other things with such budget that will serve him better.
1 Like
Another plug for 3.2, @reddog1. It also has Album View!
@Antoine should really consider reimplementing this valuable, efficient, user-friendly feature, if he values the user experience of his most long-term users. However, I guess the message with 3.5 and AS is that he does not, and that he’d prefer we were disincentivized to upgrade and pay for his newest products. Great business model, @Antoine! You’ll be sharing magazine covers with Jeff Bezos any day now!
It’s a question of opinion. Depends how you consume music, if you’re the only one in the household, to which devices you stream, do you care about multiroom, …
Of course if you’re getting Roon to install it locally on the computer and play to a USB DAC you’re wasting your money big time.
Very strange that this column view was suppressed.
I say it for several years already that Audirvana try to please users who stream, and does not consider, as much as before, the needs of users who have big libraries with their own music. Though we were the first users of Audirvana.
You can send a screenshot of this column display mode. I’m curious to see how it looked like.
1 Like
You are completely right. For a family with many users, it’s a good solution.
You know that you can stretch those columns to fill your empty screen?
Above, you can see what the old interface looked like, what the options, for additional filters, in Column Browser, looked like, what the Info window looked like, and what the UI looked like with the Info window collapsed.
I’m not even saying that my use case excludes streaming. My biggest issue with streaming platforms, frankly, is that, by default, they tend to skew toward the latest master of a given work, when, as we all know, these are, unfortunately, often not the best masterings. Therefore, I prefer to have a comprehensive archive of previous/ alternative masterings (Japanese CD’s, for instance), which, in 90+% of cases, are not available via streaming platforms, at least on a reliable basis.
Anyway, this is how v3.2.20 works for me, in a way that @Antoine seems to have no interest in continuing to support in subsequent updates. It’s a shame, because I’d be first in line to give him money for them. I just refuse to fight with poor design to get what I need, for a recreational hobby.
I am well aware of that, @RunHomeSlow. Another beautiful thing about v3.2.20 is that THE INTERFACE IS ALMOST FULLY CUSTOMIZABLE!!! What a novel idea! Haha.
Yeah, I just leave it there most of the time, because I’m often browsing multiple albums, full artist catalogs, playlists, etc.
1 Like
I watched at the filtering options, this column browser is very useful, much like the browser of JRiver.
To remove it and to replace it with what A3.5 has is incomprehensible.
Just like you, I also have SHM re-masterings, as well as MFSL, AP & AF, and I don’t want to listen to what the streaming services have to offer.
1 Like
For instance, @RunHomeSlow, this is how I often browse my music, hence my preservation of a lot of space, for song info.
2 Likes
It’s even better than JRiver, because you have the list of playlists on the left of the screen, and the tag editor on the right. In JRIver, if you display the tag editor, it appears on the left of the screen and hides the list of your playlists.
1 Like
I have nothing against streaming services, but I have been collecting and listening to music most of my life, so I have 30+ years’ worth of CD’s and downloads, many of which are simply very different from what is offered on streaming platforms.
For large sets, like Lee Morgan’s new Lighthouse set, or Neil Young’s new Archives II, streaming is a godsend, especially if you just want to listen and see if you like something, before possibly paying for a download or an LP. It’s just not my most frequent use case for Audirvana or any other music software.
1 Like
Yep, @Doudou, Audirvana used to be the best thing out there. I gave up on JRiver pretty quickly, mostly because I didn’t care for the sound quality, but also because I truly thought the interface was inferior to Audirvana.
Imagine my shock, then, when @Antoine rolled out version 3.5. He essentially chose to throw out the wheel, rather than even reinventing it.
2 Likes
It’s exactly the same for me. I started to buy music 45 years ago. Tidal and Qobuz do not offer many editions that interest me, neither some labels that interest me.
You’re right that streaming may be useful for listening before buying in special cases, like Neil Young’s Archives II, but this could also be done with cheaper streaming offers like Apple Music or Spotify.
1 Like