Simple poll on the subscription model for AS

It would be interesting to see clearer numbers, given the heated debate about this topic around here:

Do you support the subscription model for AS?
  • Yes (as originally proposed, monthly and annual)
  • Yes with lifetime option (i.e. also offering a more expensive, one-off “lifetime subscription” option)
  • Not at all (I hate subscriptions! One-off licensing for major versions only)

0 voters


I voted for “Yes with lifetime option”. You forgot one more choice: “I don’t like subscriptions, but I will subscribe to AS anyway”. I would have picked that.

1 Like

Maybe also add something like this option? ‘I am not against a subscription model. But at the moment AS does not add enough added value to subscribe’.

In your poll it is only yes or no, so as it stands I did not know what to vote.

As said: I am not against a subscription model for AS (or in general), but at the moment I don’t see the added value compared to 3.5. Also AS in my opinion is still not stable and mature enough. It still seems in a beta phase. I will wait and see what the future brings.


Tks, guys - good suggestions; but I just wanted to keep the options short and simple.

1 Like

So far, a staggering 85% of responses reflect a “NO” to the currently proposed subscription model - the Audirvana team should take note.

1 Like

Agreed. I’m not against subscription models at all; I subscribe to plenty of services now (e.g. Spotify, Netflix, etc.). But at this time I’m not sure AS provides anywhere near the value added to warrant me subscribing and using it vs. A3.5. I mean, maybe if it was priced a little better, like $5 a month I wouldn’t mind.


Semantics much? People know what you mean, but the product hasn’t even been open for purchase yet.

Yes, they do; but perhaps your reading skills are lacking. I used the expression “proposed subscription model” not to mean that they may go one-off instead of subscriptions; but rather that the current modality (monthly/annual) is what is being proposed (as opposed to also including lifetime), particularly bearing in mind that sales have not yet begun.

Again, my point is that they may further refine their offer prior to actual launch.

Well, in Oliver Twist, Fagin decides eventually it is a wise thing to “review the situation”


All this for nothing:

“Available soon”

Don’t know if you are joking, but no; the “available soon” button has been there since that PR.

Canada got f…'d over nicely: $11CAD/mo, while $7USD is actually under $8.50CAD.

Suppose US is getting a volume discount :slight_smile: as EUR and GBP prices are higher too.

1 Like

I’m not down with the subscription model but not so much; I considered a Roon lifetime.

I stayed with Audirvana simply because of the sound quality and then expense. It sounds so much better than Roon, easier (to me) to use than Amarra (it just plays super fast in my system,) didn’t much care for Jriver, Jplay just complicates things to rip you off (keeps you investing on them,) and HQPlayer come on, I’ve never been able to quite get it right simply because it’s just not in any way intuitive.

I like to sit down and listen to music, in whatever format it comes, and Audirvana does that pretty much. And it provides very good sound.

I would not in any way consider a monthly or yearly subscription, but I would definitely consider a lifetime subscription depending on price.

Many people seem vehemently opposed to the subscription to Audirvana Studio. For me it is six-of-one-and-half-a-dozen-of-the-other.

A no-brainierz (pun intended, (now fixed in latest update)) for an ongoing updated music software solution.

AS is a beautiful product for my vote. Yes, there are some (many?) glitches needing attention. I’m compiling my list which I will soon upload for the attention of Damien et al.

Yes, it was a clumsy launch. The original presentation was very glitchy. Howe er, I read that as Damien being an developer not a promoter. An the promoters by his side were also not good.

All that being said, I’m in for the long haul; bottom line, I like the look of the boy (sound) and that’s about all I need.


For many people, this is not about the amount; it’s about the principle (and the administrative hassle that comes with recurring payments/associated reminders).

So yes; I’d rather pay a higher fee now and forget about the subscription that do the same thing in instalments.


I doubt people are as vehemently opposed to subscriptions as they are to hearing the terms of the software they purchased wasn’t, in the end, true. I think a lot of people are feeling a promise made in the original sale has been broken. I don’t “hate” subscriptions though I seldom partake of them. What will Audirvana do when companies like Apple & Amazon, who both recently announced HD services in their subscriptions without additional cost, bring their own apps up to date with all the features Audirvana, Roon, etc., are advancing - and they will because they’ve got the $$ and R&D to do it. I don’t mind the option for a subscription service with additional features but I did come to this with the expectation that the original terms of sale would be honored and I truly don’t understand the inability to maintain 3.5.xx with future updates. Boggles the mind, really.

1 Like

To be honest, at the moment I see no reason at all to pay for such a product (subscription or license). The application (MacOS) is very slow, there are still a lot of bugs. We’re all beta testers right now, so what’s the reason to buy a beta product? Deliver everything to a fully working, polished version and offer to pay for it.

  1. When purchasing 3.5 it was a permanent sale and you own the product. It is still being updated (just happened today actually). Where is the contract broken? Have I got it wrong?

  2. Will it be working in ten years? I don’t know.

  3. Meanwhile a new product has come on the market… Audirvana Studio as a subscription.

  4. I will probably have both because I like the best/latest even though I don’t stream.

I do not like subscription software and will not buy it if there is a good option e.g. Adobe v Affinity but sometimes it is forced upon you after the software has become embedded in your workflow etc. e.g. SketchUp. Being forced tends to make me resentful and I remain so. That said, if Audirvana 3.5 and onward remains supported as a developing but different product I have no beef with Damien at all. In the circumstances, if this is the case, I would have made the two products even more discrete, possibly using a different name entirely, which would have given the poor relations a bit more confidence. A3.5 is not perfect but it is still the best option as far as I am concerned, at any price, for playing music from a SSD or streaming from Qobuz or Tidal. On an Mac OS system using direct mode I think I have the optimum arrangement. I hope it can stay so. Drew