It’s great. I love it. Thank you for making it.
I’m not sure if that gets said often enough. 
7 Likes
I love Audirvana Origin as well, and I’m sure the recent updates have been worthwhile improvements. I just wish some suggested improvements would be gotten around to soon, such as being able to access streaming services like Qobuz, etc. We had that on Audirvana Studio, and it was very useful & enjoyable.
That’s the main differentiator between the products. If you want to access streaming services, you need Studio. If you only play local music files, you go for Origin.
2 Likes
On Audirvana Studio, users were able to do both.
They still can………
2 Likes
Which raises the question – again – of why Audirvana Origin users can’t do both, i.e. play local files and access streaming services. Is there some technical reason that access to streaming services isn’t possible on Audirvana Origin, or has this feature just not been implemented yet? I seem to recall a comment from Antoine that it was on the “to do” list, but I’m unable to track down that comment at the moment.
Simply because if you want to access streaming services, then Studio’s for you.
If you don’t require streaming services, then it’s Origin.
Or am I missing something?
EDIT - I’m also not sure if integration of streaming services was ever on a ‘to do list’ with regard to Origin. The two packages are independent and as far as I can remember Origin became a by-product of the previously launched Studio. 
4 Likes
You pay more with Studio and you have more 
i also don’t need more.
5 Likes
I 
3.5 !
I think streaming with Orgin is on the NOT do list. ( like we’ve ever been privy to the “list” )
4 Likes
Yep mate
Origin WITH streaming = Studio, hence no need for both.
Now the idea of a perpetual ‘one-off’ license for Studio, as with Origin? That’s a TOTALLY different kettle of fish 
5 Likes
I believe origin came about as a request for us “local only” folks.
8 Likes
And an additional revenue stream from the folks who have the allergies to subscription services
2 Likes
Didn’t it originate with the Japanese market- Audirvana Book or suchlike?
1 Like
Apologies, not too sure ‘suchlike’ is an actual word, but I think you get my drift mate
Kinda-Sorta in English
I think what’s missing in this discussion is the recognition that there are other differences between Audirvana Studio & Audirvana Origin besides AS being able to access streaming services as well as play local files, and AO only being able to play local files. I canceled my AS subscription because frankly I heard little improvement in audio quality from it streaming Qobuz, compared to the online Qobuz player, or from playing local files using ordinary media player programs. When I took a trial of AO, I very quickly & enthusiastically brought the program, as there was a very clear improvement in audio quality using it.
So for me, if I want to stream Qobuz, the alternative to the non-streaming AO isn’t AS – the alternative is to simply use the online Qobuz player, which seems to provide virtually the same audio quality as AS, and use AO for the improved audio quality when playing local files.
It’s almost certainly a business decision, and not a technical issue, for Audirvana not to implement access to streaming services on AO. If so, I think they’re missing a bet – I see a lot of grumbling here & elsewhere about subscriptions versus purchases. Note to Antoine & whoever else at Audirvana HQ who might be listening – I would pay more for a version of Audirvana that had the improved sound quality of Audirvana Origin, but which could also access streaming services as well as play local files.
1 Like
Studio and Origin have the same sound…
If you prefer streaming app over Audirvana streaming, perfect for you. If Origin had the streaming service that you want, it will sound the same as Studio that you don’t like 
3 Likes
Qobuz app sounds great, works a treat. It certainly doesn’t have a quarter of the functionality of Audirvāna, plug-ins just to mention one. I don’t think you can implement them with Qobuz app. Am I wrong? Multiple DAC outputs via Ethernet if you want, upsample, r8brain……etc etc. @RunHomeSlow is correct as far as any one knows the sound engine code is identical…….you know different?
Heck I’m still using 3.5 quite successfully so I’m on the sidelines until Studio meets my requirements and expectations. The last (3) 
change logs haven’t convinced me to unpause my Studio subscription. Not really ready for prime time yet.
1 Like
How do you know that? If Audirvana Origin has superior audio quality when playing local files, compared to that of Audirvana Studio, why wouldn’t it also sound better than Audirvana Studio when accessing a streaming service?