Cheers Mike 
I’ve tried MConnect and tbh found it a little flaky.
The Linn Kazoo app/control also supports Tidal/Qobuz, if you configure it for each renderer in BubbleUPnP:
1 Like
While every software release will have its detractors, there’s a valid argument that the rollout of AS has disappointed some existing 3.5 users. Had it been positioned as an “early access” version alongside 3.5, there would be far less (mostly valid) criticism.
• I’ve enjoyed using 3.5 the past year and would pay a subscription to ensure Audirvana development continues
• the subscription of AS is fairly close to the cost of Roon; that’s a product with a much more mature design/UI and a far better integration with a variety of endpoints. By pricing in Roon territory, AS is asking to be evaluated based on its relative value
• AS is the first consideration for those without a dedicated server. But for those with the ability to install Roon on a separate server, choosing AS a much harder argument to be made. I purchase a Mac mini to dedicate to 3.5 and now I’m viewing the jump to Roon to be the better overall value.
Roon essentially offers the user the ability to create a custom streaming “service” (by consolidating their local library with Tidal/Qobuz), share that “service” with other household members, and support simultaneous streaming to powered speakers, iPhones, and MacBook-connected DAC/amps. That’s another level of product than the one AS is attempting to offer.
Before the AS release, I thought the $50/year price point (that existing 3.5 users get for the first year) was a more realistic pricing of Audirvana. After viewing the capabilities of Roon I’m even more confident of that. Of course, every user prioritizes different things. But for those 3.5 users with a stand-alone server they can run Roon on, I think many will consider its $120/year cost as a better value.
Users (and especially Mac users) need a stand-alone product like Audirvana to continue to exist. Audirvana 3.5 is a quality product that reflects its years of design and development. I just think that the AS rebranding wasn’t completely thought out in advance. The annual subscription cost is just too high compared to its higher-priced competition (Roon).
4 Likes
I believe Linux also supports Kernel Streaming, that said, there will be a difference between Windows and Linux but that might not be too subtle. At the end of the day, a headless Audirvana on a NUC running Linux offers a lot of flexibility in building your audio chain.
I replaced my Naim NDX with a dedicated DAC and bought a Mac Mini to run streaming software just before the AS announcement, so I watched the launch video with anticipation and as seems to be the case for a lot of people, thought “I’m going to try Roon” (for the 4th time actually).
Two weeks with Roon, and now I’ve installed AS - my god I love AS, to me the SQ is much better than Roon, and I just find Roon so stressful, I never know if a track will play right away or next when I click on it, and/or whether I’ll get just the one track or hundreds in the playlist.
I know the subscription model for AS is a shame, but it’s so much better than Roon to me, and thankfully it costs less. I may be in the minority but I’m happy with AS and sticking😃
1 Like
I second this. I do not run Roon but I agree with this assessment of the SQ of Studio. BTW, Audirvana Studio also trounces Audirvana 3.5 as far as SQ goes.
2 Likes
No there is no “Kernel Streaming” in Linux…Linux uses ALSA with Gstreamer and Pulse audio and mixers…if needed or desired
Kernel Streaming is only Windows.
People love NUC’s because they are small and can be powerful. A NUC does not have an advantage over a full board-ATX or mini-ITX board. In fact sometimes you can find ITX boards that hold more RAM and ATX boards that can even have 2 processors.
1 Like
Yes, I agree with you completely.
The actual focus of offering audiophile sound has been replaced by “marketing” purposes by offering almost the same software as 3.5 only newer with the note to put on a subscription.
And they probably lost sight of the real goal.
Also your point it should be able to offer at least the same content as the competition, I agree, if not better here and there.
But at the moment it is like that because everything is still quite new and additional updates will come when bugs, errors, controls are improved.
bugs,errors,user elements have been improved.
Due to the fact that the team is relatively small, this will certainly take another 6-8 months.
Mind you, we are also waiting for the reactions of the users, who are currently divided between 3.5, Roon and Studio.
From my point of view I will certainly wait before I compare them and draw my personal conclusion.
I don’t want to denigrate Studio, I would have put more focus on an app for tablets, smartphones and Dap’s as a niche. Because in the sector there is currently nothing at all that offers something that improves the sound in combination with portable dacs connected to tablets or smartphones.
If so, then only stupid players that can’t be linked to streaming providers.
The same for Dap’s.
With Dap’s, something can still be set, but not with tablets and smartphones.
I think that would have gone down much better than the blunt attempt to conqurate with Roon.
And trying to get two more streaming providers on board would have brought further improvements and changes, which would have been a positive step towards growth.
Do we have an ETA on the control app?
I would really need to use this before I purchase to see if its stable…
Hi Deleeh,
I am sorry but I cannot agree to your conclusion about AS.
Clearly by reading the vast number of posts regarding AS over the past 4 days on this forum there are mixed feelings but most of the comments say AS offers a much improved SQ experience and user interface over 3.5, how you can say “offering almost the same software as 3.5” that just makes no sense at all.
I have been using Roon for a number of years until now and I personally find both the sound quality and the user interface a substantial improvement in Studio, I have never valued the recommendations Roon has to offer, my main focus being on SQ & UI.
The Radio feature is also a vast improvement over Roons as well, offering many more station options & a better targeted genre to search for.
Despite ALL of the negative comments surrounding the launch of Audirvana Studio and clearly there are still some bugs to be overcome, I would NOT go back to ROON which I truly believe to be an inferior option at nearly twice the subscription price of AS.
Studio WILL improve over the next few months just as Roon has been improving over the past few years but AS is Already ahead of Roon at it’s inception in my opinion and will only get MUCH better.
As for the dissenters who say they will wait 12 months to let Damien sort out the current bugs, I think they are not doing justice to a platform that even now is so much superior to it’s competitors, just put away your prejudices & see the light.
As for the subscription, as I have said before in other forums it really isn’t asking an unreasonable amount so long as the software continues to be supported, version 1.1 after only 4 days shows Damien is listening and trying to sort things out.
I’m sure it all WILL be sorted but even now I am enjoying a much improved listening experience compared to Roon less than a week ago, to me that is huge progress!!
11 Likes
When comparing Roon and AS, I find it impossible to believe that those writing AS offers so much more than Roon. One need only look at the clarity of fonts, graphics and album art. Not to mention those that rave about the SQ of AS vs Roon. Without the ability to do true A/B testing, bias is guiding your perception. They sound so much alike it’s stunning. I can do A/B comparisons on my dedicated NUC. Which is currently running both programs and nothing else. Until you can do that, it’s impossible to differentiate them.
For those that honestly believe they can tell the difference, I’m sure you believe you can tell the difference between redbook cd’s and hi res. 90% of people can’t.
AS definitely has a place in the marketplace. But competing head to head against Roon will be an uphill battle. Especially with the unprofessional introduction and roll out of Studio.
4 Likes
My findings, I completed a bit perfect test in Roon and AS:
2 Likes
I would love to evaluate the SQ of AS if it would play , my Cambridge Audio CXN is silent
All I can use are the tinny PC speakers , my CXN on Roon does sound better 
I would love to evaluate the SQ too, but the bug on Big Sur does not allow me to listen to it in optimal conditions.
As I’ve initiated this thread, I’d like to respond to some comments.
Re SQ, that is entirely subjective – some prefer Roon, others AS/A+, or can’t detect a significant difference.
When it comes to functionality, however, that’s no longer subjective. 1) Roon works – period! 2) Roon offers many more functions than AS (take search function for example: I exclusively listen to classical music, and with Roon I’m able to look at all the works of a composer and filter them by conductor, ensemble, year… so that I will find the one recording that I want. For me that’s an essential function, and makes AS quite useless.)
For those with large personal libraries, Audirvana has always been limited.
From that perspective, and given that I don’t think that AS sounds superior to Roon, I find the new subscription model over-priced and will not subscribe. (I would never have considered comparing A and Roon before, but now A takes first steps into Roon territory, and then you need to be able to compete, given that you ask a price only slightly lower).
Last point: ever since Apple Music has announced that they’ll be offering a hi-res tier, everything in the streaming world has changed. What will happen to Qobuz and Tidal? Will they be able to compete against AM with a much larger music catalogue at a price 2 to 3 times lower? This concerns Roon as well, of course, and over on the Roon forum, audiophiles are getting nervous. Because both Audirvana and Roon largely depend on these two streaming services (streaming is the future, after all). By the way, Amazon has just included its HD tier into Music Unlimited – same price as AM. Later this year, Spotify will offer CD quality, but they’ll be in trouble as well as they wanted to raise prices for that upgrade – impossible now. (Both Spotify and Apple Music have highly functional UIs). So again what will happen to Qobuz and Tidal?
1 Like
that’s my concerned to,
Apple has also radio stations all around the world, that’s for me important.
In the near future I hope that Roon and/or Audirvana will not come in troubles because they don’t have Apple and HD amazon music in their pocket.
People always look at the costs and I think in the end Tidal and Qobuz lose the battle against Apple and Amazon.
There will be a turning point for Roon and Audirvana to choose witch streaming they use.
1 Like
Hi JDT,
I understand what you are saying but certainly in my Hi-Fi system (I do not use headphones) and using a 32inch iMac I find very audible differences.
My Roon subscription ran out last weekend so I can no longer do direct comparisons but when I was using Roon I had to use the DSP functions to get the sound I preferred (to lift the treble mostly)
With Audirvana 3.5 I also had to use Audio Units to do the same (I even bought Sonimus EQ Pro).
Now using Studio I can turn audio units off and the sound is stunning.
Maybe it’s because I use a Mac and you are using a windows based NUC but certainly I hear a big improvement with Studio.
I do get what you say about the graphics, I hope Damien will at some point address this and allow us to customise the fonts etc, but with my 32" iMac everything is very clear and readable but it must be a real problem if you are using a laptop!!
1 Like
I switched from a Roon ROCK NUC (modified USB output, linear power supply) to Audirvana Studio with Fidelizer and AO3 and i am completely blown away by the sound quality. To me Audirvana sounds way, way better than Roon.
Audirvana sounds much more spacious with full of dynamics and at the same time not so “nervous” as Roon. Can’t explain it really well but to me it was absolutely worth the change. I will definately describe even if the software is full of bugs 
3 Likes
Hi,
I prefer the SQ of Audirvana and the ability to listen to SACD Iso is a great feature but I think Audirvana has followed a very risky path while it had a safe and coherent placement : the strength of Roon is the ergonomie and the permanent editorial work, that’s what justified for some the subscription system. If Audirvana wanted to follow the same path, it would have been more logical to fill these pre-requirements before launching the Studio version. For now, it’s just a regular software that charges monthly what it was charging definitely and interfaces tweaks doesn’t change anything.
I think there is a little confusion, there is no IMac of 32inch (perhaps you have a 32’’ screen attached to a Mac).
Best regards
Is there even a API for AM they can use? I am afraid of being stuck in a Apple System without all the SQ-benefits A+/AS or others offer.