Audirvāna Studio vs Roon

🖥️ Audirvāna
312

I paid a one-time fee of $499 US in early 2017. With the annual price at $120 US per annum, I have just about recovered the lifetime billing fee I paid and I hope to keep using Roon without paying anything further.

I had the money back then and just took a chance. Since that time, I have retired, and I am always looking for ways to cut out expenses. So today I would not likely subscribe to Roon nor would I opt for the lifetime billing (which is now $699 US).

In any case, I have been happy with Roon. And I am happy with the sound quality (I use it on WIndows either with an ASIO driver–USB connection–or via network to a streamer). Also, it worked really well with my Tidal subscription, which I no long have. We do not yet have Qobuz in Canada yet – I would like to try it with that.

313

It’s a very good application that is pleasant to use. The screenshots that you showed me of how 1.8 displays hybrid SACDs were impressive.

314

Hey everyone.

I used Foobar for years and years… Then I bought JRiver and after a couple of years I decide to test other players around the internet.

Last week I’ve download JPlay, Roon, Audirvana, HQPlayer asides with Foobar and JRiver. What I can say is the thing: Audirvana the best. Why? Sounds to much clear, crispy, “analitical” (my perfect taste of players and equipament), show everything, not changing the texture of the sound. I could say it’s like Luxman of players. For those who listened Luxman knows what I’m saying.

I’ll subscribe… but only after the remote for android. I hope soon.

2 Likes
315

There’s an Arab proverb that says: “On taste and smell, it’s impossible to discuss”.

For me, Audirvana sounds good, but to my ears it’s not the best.
HQPlayer’s playback of DSD is superior by far, and is quite better for PCM. And HQPlayer sounds more natural than Audirvana.
But this is my own taste.

I discovered also an ugly Russian player with a horrible UI, that sounds better than most of the players, including Audirvana.

3 Likes
316

I agree that Damien is probably fixing issues. Responding to forums can take half a day out of your work. But Damien assuming that this is just Damien on his own, should be fixing an issue, then releasing an update. Allow us to see something being done, plus as beta software you expect to see nightly updates.

317

I am looking for an alternative player. Sound quality is everything to me, but not at the expense of software that doesn’t actually work properly. Can anyone give me some options to try please?

318

That is absolutely true! I love Roon for its UI and its sheer endless choices of music you can have, but regarding its sound quality, others are better.

It’s a pity, for me Roon is an exceedingly good library/music management app, but not for listening.

320

You can try Euphony.

It has various system options, also a Roon-embedded mode, but to me, the Stylus option sounds best. There’s a 30 day trial version available.

UI is pretty basic, definitely not for everyone!

321

For Windows 10 I have three players to recommend you. They may interest you, if you don’t listen to Tidal or Qobuz.

The first player has a great sound quality. IMO, its sound is superior to Audirvana, Roon & JRiver.

It’s a Russian audiophile player, and it does all what AS and Roon do, and much, much more, except streaming with Tidal and Qobuz.

It has an excellent Bit-perfect mode.
It upsamples PCM tracks.
It upsamples PCM tracks to DSD 128.
It has thousands of radios.
It plays all the formats, including DSF-WV (that Audirvana does not play) and iSO SATA and CUE split tracks (that Roon does not support). It plays even exotic formats that no player wants to read.
It also has many DSP features (that I don’t use).
And many other features…

The Application exists for Windows, iPhone and Android. I use it both with my Dell and my iPhone, and I’m very happy with it.
It can be used with a DAC and with a network solution.

The player is called Neutron Music Player. It’s very little known in the audiophile community.
This player is the ugliest application I’ve ever seen. It has a Russian UI, made in an atomic bunker, but its sound is like the voice of God.
It’s a rock solid player that never crushes on my Dell.
And it costs nothing on Microsoft Store, only $8! There’s even a fully featured trial version for a week.

The UI is very confusing in the beginning, with many hidden features and settings, but once you get used to it, it’s quite an efficient UI. Its library management is also good, once you are used to it.

I highly recommend you to try this player for its outstanding sound quality (and it’s ridiculously low price, compared to what it has to offer.)
And if you are a bit confused by its UI, don’t hesitate to ask me about it. I know it quite well now, and I’ll be happy to help.

++++++++++++

There’s another player that I can recommend you for Windows. It is a Japanese audiophile player, called TuneBrowser. It does not support streaming and is only for local playback.
It sounds good, and offers UI and UE of exceptional quality. The display offers a highly custumable interface. Really remarkable.

It’s a shareware. You can get a free fully-featured version of this player from the Microsoft Store that you can keep forever. Its only restriction is that the library cannot exceed 500 tracks.
The full version of TuneBrowser, without this restriction, costs some $40 on the Microsoft store. But if you want to buy it, I’ll suggest you to do it on the site of his developer where it is sold for some $30 only.

++++++++++++

The third player that I can suggest to you is BRIO by OraStream. This audiophile player was supported by Neil Young.
The player sounds good, but plays PCM tracks that are up to 24-192. 32 Bit tracks are played as 16 Bit tracks. There are no limitations for DSD.
The player seems very simple, but has all the features that an aufiophile player needs, including a decent library management.
It plays with a DAC and with a network system. It has also a good remote.

This player is offered completely for free on the site of OraStream. In addition, you get, for free, 25 GB of cloud storage for your music to listen to it with your phone.

OraStream has paid subscription offers for users who want to get more cloud storage and for users who want to stream content (like companies that run internet radios).

There’s also a Mac version of this player.

1 Like
322

That’s why I always say “this hobby is selfish”. hahah

I’m a guy who doesn’t care about reviews and these stuff, because my taste is different than everyone, as my room, my equipament and my ears. None of us have the same listening capacities.

We have a lot of distintive stuff for looking to a review and think: “Yeah. That’s it!”. Not for me. Before I do any buy I’ll test the equipament and see if fits me, and everyone should do the same. Nothing better than your own trial.

1 Like
323

Same for me. I do not refer to reviews. I tried all the players I spoke about, and bought a license for all of them, except Roon.

1 Like
324

I will run a trial with your choices above. Let’s see. I love testing these stuff hahaha

325

Nearly a day of testing media players!

Thanks for everyone’s suggestions. I still feel that AS is the best sound quality, but at the moment, it is unusable for me. A complete buggy mishmash.

I’ve chosen Foobar as my secondary player. The sound quality is not quite up to AS, but it’s close. I’m using a WASAPI output to my Chord Mojo DAC & then onto my Shure 1840 headphones. I’m using local FLAC files on a WIndows 10 desktop.

326

Although not intending to purchase AS, I have been trialling it. It works perfectly on my setup, the sound is excellent, though no better than A3.5.

1 Like
327

This is very subjective. I prefer AS with my actual settings and I’m too lazy to test other solutions and I prefer to listen, not to test and test and test or do too much other audio related activities.

One month ago I didn’t have a DAC and used my Realtek soundboard. I listened to few songs (the same) from Qobuz with Roon, A 3.5 and AS and decided: AS has clearly the best sound. This was my first impression so far and my wife had the same feeling. After this I bought a DAC, tweak and tweak and tweak the settings and now I’m very satisfied. I don’t want to spend a single day testing and a single penny more, I will LISTEN, it’s too much music that needs to be discovered and enjoyed.

2 Likes
328

It’s interesting, how some people can notice a difference that others believe is not there.
And it really doesn’t matter, does it? If we are each happy with our systems.

1 Like
329

Exactly. It’s not my software, I don’t want to sell anything to anybody. For example now I listen to Queen and really enjoy the sound, that’s all that matters to me.

1 Like
330

Do I need “HQPlayer” in Audirvana or Roon (which I prefer), if I use a good DAC (iFi Micro iDSD Black Label) to improve the audio quality? I couldn´t recognize any difference between Roon and Audirvana output with my DAC.

331

Me…

cover_215616122016_r
cover_215616122016_r1000×1000 64.4 KB

2 Likes
332

I also use iFi Micro iDSD Black Label. And regardless of the quality of the DAC, HQPlayer provides a great playback, even with the most expensive DACs.

HQPlayer does not integrate with Audirvana. It integrates with Roon, but with this integration, there is a perdition of the quality of sound. When I tried Roon I tried all the settings, but could not avoid this perdition.
HQPlayer sounds much better when it plays alone, without Roon.

I don’t have Roon to compare to AS.

1 Like