Greetings and informations about Studio

Hello to all new friends.
This is my first post. I purchased Atoll ms120 so i’ll try Audirvana Studio. First question. What is the difference between Studio and 3.5. Into an old post (2021) i read that 3.5 was better than studio.
Second question. At this moment I use Roon on MacMini. Audirvana Studio can working with Roon?

Thank in advance

Hi Angelos. The main difference between 3.5 and Studio I believe is that Studio has streaming integration whereas 3.5 is just for local files. I haven’t heard about any difference in sound quality, just the lack of streaming integration in 3.5. I don’t know about your second question as I don’t use Roon. The general opinion is that Audirvana has the edge on sound quality over Roon but Roon is far better for remote use.

1 Like

Thank you for answer.
So for local resident music there isn’t difference. For Qobuz or other streaming service, yes there is.
For Roon question. HQPlayer can be integrating into the Roon chain. Audirvana Studio, can it does?

Sorry but @Dazza is wrong… studio and 3.5 not existing anymore are pretty much the same, except studio design is more raffined and i thought the sound was better to me…

Origin version is for local playing only.

1 Like

Hi @Angelo58,

It seems there is some confusion in the answers.
Like @RunHomeSlow already said: Audirvana 3.5 is an old (legacy) version and you can not buy it anymore.

At the moment there are 2 versions of Audirvana:

  • Audirvana Origin. This is for playing local files only. You can buy this version for a ‘one time’ amount.
  • Audirvana Studio. This is for playing local files and streaming services (Qobuz, Tidal…) and is subscription based only.

Personally I have the old 3.5 version and I also have bought the Origin version. If I use SoX upsampling on both I can not here a difference. I I use r8brain upsampling (only in the Origin version) I can here a difference and (subjectively speaking) I like Origin a tiny bit more. If I don’t use upsampling at all I can not here a difference between the two. In my opinion both sound really good.

I hope I did not add more to the confusion :grinning:

By the way you can find all information about the Audirvana versions on:

Audirvāna - Music Player⎢HD Digital Audio Player (audirvana.com)

You just need to dig a little deeper in the menus of the site and then you will find the differences and the pricing between the Origin and Studio version.

2 Likes

My bad. I was thinking of Origin.

1 Like

See this link:
Audivarna + Hqplayer Desktop - Studio - Audirvana

Thank you again.
I think I understood the difference between Origin and Studio and prefer Studio.
So Audirvana Studio is alternative to Roon and it is a no sense using it with Roon. Is it so?

Correct. It makes no sense to use Audirvana with Roon.
There are differences between Roon and Audirvana. Roon can do things that Audirvana can’t and Audirvana can do things that Roon can’t.
It is up to you to decide what you prefer. I personally have sound quality as my first priority and in my opinion Audirvana sounds better than Roon.

1 Like

Thank you for answer. Could you, please, tell me in short a list of differences in your experience?

I would not know where to start. The last time I used Roon is 2 years ago and there are too many differences to mention.

In general:

  • Roon presents your music as browsing a ‘glossy magazine’.
  • Audirvana presents your music in a more ‘traditional’ way.

You can try out Roon free for a month and you can also try out Audirvana free for a month. I suggest you do that and make your own choice. There is also a lot of information on Google. I suggest you try to search for ‘Audirvana vs Roon’ on Google and a lot of information comes up.

1 Like

As @AndyLubke has said, it’s difficult to know where to start. It depends how you plan to use it. If it’s mainly in one room in your house then I’d go with Audirvana but if you want to easily play to different systems in your house or access you library away from your house then Roon would be the way I’d go. I think the remote usability of remote app of Roon is far better but for my use, Audirvana has the edge in terms of sound and control for use in my office/listening room.
The other thing is the cost. Roon is expensive. Audirvana is a bargain in comparison.

2 Likes

For me and my ears Audirvana by a mile. Based largely on sound quality but as a subscriber to both I keep checking Roon on an old M2 Macbook Air secondary machine to see if updates make it more suitable for my use case. Obviously my list is based on my use case for a digital audio player app. Yours may well be different.

Audirvana Advantages

  1. Sound quality to my ears much better with Audirvana. Like R8 Brain a lot.
  2. UI more consistent with OS. Smaller default font sizes and scalable graphics means much more information on a given screen hence much less scrolling. UI more consistent with macOS making use as a windowed app on multiple displays more seamless and pleasing.
  3. Much lower computer resource usage than Roon (check Mac OS RAM and CPU usage, sort the list to show all the Roon apps running and compare for yourself).
  4. Minimal AS interaction with Audirvana servers (licence check and not too much else) Monitor Roon’s traffic with the mothership and you will see what I mean.
  5. Smart playlists.
  6. Better folder view IMO than Roon’s begrudging implementation.

Roon’s Advantages

  1. Much more detail in respect of artists/albums etc. If you like reading while listening its a better option.
  2. Quality of album art, artists pictures very good, Roon takes data from Musicbrains and stores it in its own curated database - leads to fewer issues with metadata. Valance artist pictures are good. AS requires much more manual intervention on meta data to get things to my satisfaction.
  3. Multi-room support - not for me but some people want it.
  4. RAAT is very reliable, UPnP a bit more flaky but the Plays with Audirvana programme is slowly addressing this across a broader range of manufacturers.
  5. Minor usability enhancements - meta data editing, merging albums that have erroneously split into 2 more seamless with Roon.

For me at the end of the day it is all about perceived sound quality. Also the UI of Roon irritates me a lot as I use AS on a 32" Pro XDR display alongside other apps. Roon seems designed to be a full screen app.

For everyone else, try both and see what you prefer.

1 Like

And from AllMusic and Wikipedia, multi room has been mentioned but not the Remote app, the AS Remote app is simply that a remote , when installed say on an iPad, it cannot use the iPad playback it is simply an app to control the desktop/server version , that’s a big downer for me . Roon will play direct on the installed device. I then use BT headphones in the garden , AS can’t do this.

Big difference is AS is ONE Zone , Roon is Multi Zone (maybe as many as 20)

Beware , Roon is very demanding on the local network, WiFi often fails and stutters, the buffering in Roon is very low to allow zone sync, I think AS loads tracks in advance.

Roon plays best where the end point is designed with Roon in mind and RAAT installed , check your streamer before you try you could finish up with only AirPlay. AS supports UPnP but can have difficulties with some implementations. The Atoll 120 seems to be Roon Ready.

There are loads of threads on SQ differences , so you pays your money you takes your choice. I personally find there is a level difference which confuses comparisons.

If you are into metadata , Roon is the one , the interlinks from within say a artists bio are great , from any page you can link to other albums, artists etc mentioned on that page.

The simple answer is TRY BOTH, I use both and JRiver as well , if i were to split I would say 90% Roon. The AS UI takes a bit of getting used to and isn’t nearly as flexible as Roon, JRiver is ultra flexible in that you can design your own views with a rules engine.

Both AS and Roon are complex beasts and take a while to get around all the features available so patience is recommended. Roon offers a 14 day demo, AS 30 days but you can subscribe monthly to Roon to “extend” a trial. AFAIK AS is only an annual sub (I stand to be corrected)

Finally there is a significant price difference but you get what you pay for . Not the place to say it but I would favour Roon.

Just my 2p

1 Like

Diversity in preference is what keeps the audio space vibrant and progressive. A win/win for all……

AS has both a monthly and annual subscription. Yes it’s good to have alternative opinions and yes it is a perfect place to state your opinion. Tribalism is one of the main problems we face in today’s society. Hopefully it wont spread to this forum…

As does Audirvana. Plays on the device on which it is installed.

Important point about this: We do not require a credit card to start your trial :slight_smile:

Oh, and when you pay for Audirvāna, we not only display the price depending on your location, but we also pay the tax in each country that requires paying tax for digital goods (not sure Roon does this) :slight_smile:

I am not criticizing Audirvana Studio , just pointing out differences that I find important.

Maybe taking the whole quote in it’s original context may make it clearer, I was referring to the Remote app which acts only a remote and does not allow playback on the installed device , your quote clip is abbreviated implying that it is incorrect !!

Off course Audirvana Studio plays on the device it’s installed on that’s what it does . It is not even possible to install as on an iPad. I was referring to playing music on an iPad using the Remote App , this the Audirvana Remote App DOES NOT do.

I use an iPad as a playback device connected to headphones or speakers by Bluetooth . Roon Remote and JRemote both allow this , Audirvana Remote does not

Clear as mud ?

Sorry but i didn’t understand.
I run audirvana studio on my mac mini and on my ipad i’ve got an app audirvana that connect with the Audirvana on macmini.
The problem is that i can’t see my Atoll ms120. It is connected via Lan under same network.