Work hard when you’re young enough, retire when you’re still young enough.
Wagner or Depech Mode will probably do. Hopefully won’t have to make a choice 
High speed, Low Drag
3 Likes
Others have said it, but I repeat it:
Audirvana Studio and Audirvana Origin both have exactly the same sound engine. They are both exactly the same program except for the streaming part.
Whatever difference you think to hear is due to your own interpretation or differences in your setup while compairing. Also expectation bias and/or imagination may play a role here. If you insist you here a difference, fine with me, but technically and objectively this is not possible.
I also have used AS and AO both for a while and I could not hear any difference in sound quality while playing my local library.
How can 2 technically identical programs sound different? The only logical explanation is: there must be some technical or subjective differences at play at your side, but not in the 2 versions of Audirvana itself.
On one point I agree with you: The difference between Audirvana Studio and Origin is indeed a business decision:
- If you play local music only (and do not want subscription based) buy Audirvana Origin (cheaper).
- If you want streaming as well (and do not mind a subscription) use Audirvana Studio. Exactly the same sound quality but more options.
Because of the reasons above and as others already said: Your wish to enable streaming in Audirvana Origin probably never will happen.
5 Likes
Rarely.
1 Like
I would just like to reiterate: I love Audirvana Origin.
This thread is a great example of why the internet was a terrible idea.
5 Likes
I 
oxygen
I love Audirvana Oxygen too. Hmm that was bad, even for a dad’s joke. Another reason the internet is a terrible idea (allowing people like me to manifest bad humor).
For now (a tiny bit early): A happy new year everybody! 
4 Likes