I’m an registered Audirvana user since 2016 and mainly use Audirvana Origin, because I mostly use local files (DSD, surround, flac, …) and only use Apple Music with Homepods for the occasional streaming.
I’m also a professional webdesigner and desktop publisher since the late 1990s and Apple user since 1984… so I really like clean user interfaces that are easy to use. I find Audirvana the best sounding music player, but I’m not really fond of the UI and UX.
That’s why I had the crazy idea to design some mockups for an interface that’s cleaner and easier to use, but still has the “Audirvana feeling”
So here are some of the mockups I created… what do you think of it?
All comes down to personal preference really, one of the main reasons I use Audirvana over Roon is my preference for the UI which is more conforming with, in my case, macOS UI design principles. Roon is a mess of oversized fonts and graphics which results in severely limited information being available on any given screen and massively excessive scrolling or use of the search functions to navigate your library.
@Stijn_Van_Nuffelen
I love the mockup!!! clean and practical! all it needs a option to disable the sidebar and i hope i can see a mockup of the MiniPlayer of your mind!
Compliments to the work. I don’t know yet if I like it better. I am not a fan of Apple designs, so maybe I am influenced by that when looking at this. But by no means it’s a turn off.
As said it’s all personal preference.
User Experience is paramount. Why would anyone use software that fails to deliver a pleasant, productive, and functional experience?
So many music apps either look like spreadsheets, or like a mess of icons/menus/buttons. Use album art! Use artist photos! Show the playlist on the “now playing” or equivalent screen! And don’t use completely non-standard and confusing icons like a lock instead of a standard square stop symbol.
The Qobuz app is an example of a nice design, though not perfect for me. MusicBee has an almost completely customizable interface, which is even better.
We spend a lot of time in front of screens. It’s not too much to ask that those screens be pleasant esthetically as well as functionally.
You are right, but what you like another may dislike. It is all a matter of personal taste. What you define as ‘esthetically pleasant’ another may find horrible and vice versa. Using very absolute language about taste as if it is the absolute thruth is IMO not very useful in discussions like this.
While I gave examples of UX I like, I did not make a universal statement. That being said you can ask anyone who has studied visual arts, graphic design, or similar fields and there certainly are general trends.
A long time (and two careers) ago I took a course called “Visual Perception” as part of a photography and layout program. It was abslutely fascinating!
Primary for me is the sound-quality of the audio-engine… I’ll live with quirks in the UI… Nothing is perfect for everyone… But if the sound-quality is diminished by operational UI overhead/graphics and queuing … it is a non-starter for me personally.
Why this obsession for altered sq? We live in a modern era, many people use Audirvana making other tasks in parallel without sacrifying sq (at least not audible, so who cares?). Many (free) players have skins. For example this interface can be named “classic”, and your interface “agoldnear”, and mine “dgrigorescu”. I mean tons of skins for everyone, that’s how other players work without sacrifying anything. You are not a programmer, I’m sure Damien will say that is possible but probabily will not be implemented because of extra work needed / small team.
If superior audio-quality is not the most important aspect of Audirvāna to you and other users, then why are you bothering?
I personally don’t have complaints about how my Library of music is accessed, viewed and displayed and do not want the focus to be shifted to UI/UX elements to the detriment of the audio-engine performance which will impinge on the superior sound-quality we now enjoy, which is the fundamental premise for Audirvāna.
From the Audirvāna home page “About”:
Our mission
We make great sound accessible by turning one’s computer into a high performance digital source. Our only purpose is to preserve the integrity of digital music and maintain absolute transparency during playback from a computer, server or NAS. We get rid of the ‘invisible’ noise of the hardware electronics, avoiding all unnecessary conversions and processing – source of jitter and interferences – which result in audible noise and distortion as they are amplified through each component of the audio chain. https://audirvana.com/about-audirvana-damien-plisson-story-key-releases/
I’m ok with this interface. But adding skins and skins support will be a plus for Audirvana business. And I’ m pretty sure these days such a thing can be done without affecting sq. They can test and launch the feature only when is stable.
I completely understand this… however, the underlying actions related to the UI do affect CPU interrupts, etc, which present ripples into the clocking of the digital-audio data, due to wait-times and buffering…
The OP even states they have moved to another player and apparently not concerned about sound-quality…
i’m the OP of this topic and have never stated I’ve moved on to another audio player. In my original post I’ve said I find Audirvana the best sounding player, but I don’t really like the UI/UX and that’s why I created these mockups, to make the UI cleaner and easier to use (easier navigation of albums, playlist, settings, etc…)
There’s also no way my interface will tax the processor and have an impact on the sound quality. The interface is as clean/minimal as it gets, it’s just more modern, less cluttered and in my opinion more professional looking
Here is also an example of a better UX: some things are now somewhat hidden from the main Audirvana interface, eg. simple things like how to edit the track name, edit the track info or show the audio scan. This could all be accessible via a contextual menu:
You are also presenting UI/UX issues as inherently conflicting with sound quality. Finally, you and many others in this thread seem to think than UX is only about appearance, while it is also very much about useability.
Exaggerating for clarity: if the UX is so bad that it gets in the way of playing music then the sound quality is irrelevant since I’m busy fighting with the UI and never actually playing music.
This thread is moot since we have seen nothing to indicate interest from the developers to redesign the UI and rethink the UX. Nevertheless I will state the following clearly in the hope of not being misunderstood or misquoted again:
I did not renew my Audirvana subscription in part because I strongly dislike (subjectibe) the UI/UX, and also objectively believe the UX fails in meeting some objective principles of design and intereferes with easy of use,
I find Audirvana far too expensive for what it provides on my budget, and the insistence on monthly subscription merely to access a streaming service is a money-grab,
While Audirvana’s sound quality is outstanding, I don’t particularly like it (subjective) and there is more to enjoying music than chasing numbers, graphs, and the myth of “bit perfect”.
I engaged in this thread because Audirvana is a great product and one that other music app developers could stand to learn from. I fully plan to check in every few years to see how Audirvana grows and changes, and as my own needs change. Finally UI/UX are very important topics for me, particulalry now as at work I am supervising a compelte re-design of our web site considering everything from accessibility needs to considerations of poor literacy (and digital literacy).
[quote=“pjmorley, post:22, topic:43495, full:true”]if the UX is so bad that it gets in the way of playing music then the sound quality is irrelevant since I’m busy fighting with the UI and never actually playing music.
[/quote]
This. The reason I created these quick mockups was that Audirvana while being for me the best sounding audio player, for me it has an UI/UX that is not up to the design / usability standards of many major quality apps that are available on eg. macOS or iOS.
A truly great application for me needs to be the best in what it does (in Audirvana’s’ case: the best sounding audio player), while also having a clean and intuitive user interface (without too many hidden buttons, windows or other hidden features), that can also be used by people who never used the app before (using icons, buttons and menu’s / navigation they are familiar with). That’s not an easy thing to accomplish, but with a well-thought UI/UX that should be possible, also for Audirvana.
