Short and simple is nice but gravly misleading. Sorry. Why not make make peaople pay for an upgrade each or very other year. What about the value proposition. I have tons of subsciptions. Adobe, Microsoft, Netflix, Tidal, Spotify, shelled out 500 euros on roon.
The value proposition of the services you’ve listed and Audirvana are not parallels.
Adobe and Microsoft are commercial, revenue generating applications in most cases.
Netflix, Tidal, and Spotify are providing content.
Roon is the only one that’s the same as Audirvana and you bought a lifetime license, something that Audirvana doesn’t offer.
I agree. I could install Mojave on my Mac in order to have both 3.5 and Studio with Direct Mode and Integer Mode. It sounds equivalent. I was hoping a real UI improvment in Studio, and I must say it didn’t happen. 3.5 bugs are in Studio, and Studio have also its own bugs. I hope that the next update will take care of that.
Thinking about this model, I must admit I am not against it.
Why?
I tend to think a subscription model might be the only model to guarantee us users a continued development of Audirvana. The company needs an income stream they can count on to evolve Audirvana. $50 and thereafter $70 is doable for me. Like @Jim_F, I also did pay some $420 (early adopter in 2015) for Roon. I need to see Audirvana evolve into a true possible replacement for Roon.
I go for year no1 and hope for the best. $50 for me is a good investment without real risk.
1 Like
And this is a fact!
Considering this Audirvana is really worth the risk for year no.1
1 Like
Just the starter and no beer at Raymond Blanc’s Manoir aux Quat’ Saisons though…
1 Like
Dear Audirvana team!
I do own many one-off licensed software packages for many years now. Since I bought them they were (and mostly still are) handy and stable, serving me well.
That said, I do like Audirvana 3.x with TIDAL integration for its unparalleled audio quality, but it kind of feels like an ongoing construction site to me. Over the years, some updates made it more responsive and stable, only to revert back to old problems at later updates eventually.
In other words: Even if I would have a great experience testing your new AS software, I´d stay doubtful regarding future “improvements”.
That might deter me from buying a new major one-off licensed version, let alone a subscription model. Virtually no other software I use, be it purchased or freeware, works that shaky on my up-to-date Win10 system. I´m really sorry to have no better news.
Disclaimer: Maybe I´m the only user with such issues, and if that´s the case then I can fully understand if you ignore me as just a single unfortunate customer.
All the best with your future versions, whichever route you decide to take.
Just let me know if you decide to offer a mature version with a reasonable one-off licensing and the option to turn off automatic updates and provide an easy roll-back function in case of a destabilizing update.
Cheers!
2 Likes
Surely you can see the votes on how it is received so far.
2 Likes
I think the horse is carrying quite a few of Audirvana’s previous customers with it 
6 Likes
At the moment the problem is not one of price or model. Today audirvana works very badly (on windows 10 in any case). Enormously bugs, crashes and when it wants to work well for a few minutes, not even gapless… etc… As it is, I wouldn’t even give 5 euros for the lifetime license, the software is unusable for me. There are a little less than 20 days of testing left, I’m not very optimistic about the necessary corrections before the end of the test. If there is no real mea culpa and concrete measures I fear for the future of Audirvana. I am very disappointed because I have a lot of respect for the work done previously by Damien.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
3 Likes
Maybe because other people have other systems, other configurations, other wishes, other expectations and other ways of using it than you? So many people, so many minds.
2 Likes
Many reasons.
Inadequate QA
Variety of hardware, DACs, streamers, amplifiers, speakers, headphones
Various usability issues.
Various plain bugs.
Lack of polish expected from premium subscription.
Lack of public beta testing. We are in that stage now.
Single developer most likely working on the desktop apps.
Missing remote apps.
Objective different sound compared to last version. And not better sound unfortunately.
And so on.
2 Likes
well, it is also a question of ownership:
- if I am happy with a setup and the current product, and offered improvements DO NOT appeal to me, why should I have to pay (and please do not argue that “there has been lots of effort gone into these improvements”; any company has to work to convince customers to buy a new product; I am even still using the kitchen blender of my grandmother manufactured in the 50s well before I was born… and yes, I know that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison)
- if I have a subscription and the software stops working as soon as I cease to pay I am very much worried (this is the usual case with subscription - you are “renting” a service and payments in the past have not transferred any ownership ad usage rights for the future)
Hi Jim, why did you regret it?
Not a fan of subscriptions and it’s a likely deal breaker for me.
Good Point, Jim. I Inderstand.
1 Like
I responded No but it’s not as simple as that. I have nothing against subscription models. I don’t see any compelling reason to switch from my Audirvana 3.5.46. I own a streaming DAC … an Auralic Vega G1 … and can’t access it thru either Audirvana OR Studio without directly connecting my PC to my DAC. And neither version recognizes my minim music server on my NAS.
My Vega DAC has a player application that does everything I need it to do. It recognizes my music server and the sound quality is wonderful. I use Audirvana exclusively on my MacBook Pro to play thru my desktop system: a Schit Bifrost DAC and Asgard 2 headphone amp. I can’t really use it for anything else. I’ve also used JRiver for years.
I just don’t see the point of Studio. It doesn’t seem to give me anything that Audirvana already gives me.
1 Like
G’day. Many will hate me for this but hey. I believe that a subscription model leads to a better product on the long run and a more predictable cash flow for the software vendor.
In the case of a subscription model, all future formats and bug fixes are provided as part of the service and there is no question as to what new licenced version will support what new features and how long older versions are supported and patched. So even though ownership is great, on this one I believe this is beneficial for the consumer. And if we do not like it, we can just cancel the subscription and look for something else. No residual investment to write-off, money tied up in an unused software. One more thing; a licenced version may have a code-bound feature, which is no longer supported by the OS. Like 32 bit s/w support on Mac. In Australia a major accounting software vendor said that users should just stay on old MacOS or migrate to the cloud. So software end-user ownership is an illusion to some extent.
From the software vendor’s side it also means that there is only one code-base to maintain. There is no such thing as diverse patching, diverse bug fixing, forking development. The vendor can focus all efforts on a single software. Cheaper, more efficient, more predictable, what not. So it is also good for the vendor.
I did not buy 3.5 but to put my money where my mouth is I’ll now subscribe for AS once the trial expires.
2 Likes
I’m glad it works for you and that you’ll accept and are happy with a beta program.
1 Like
I am a software tester and let’s face it, when a new release of MS Windows is published, that is also at beta level at best. So I just accept it as a fact of life, but I understand that we may have different expectations. 
2 Likes