You canāt blame Audirvana for trying a model that works well for others.
I donāt blame Audirvana at all. And when you say others, you mean Roon. I tried Roon and it did not offer me a better SQ than a player I already have.
If Iāll subscribe to SA it will be only if I clearly get a superior sound quality than the one that I already get from the players that I have.
If it wonāt be the case, and since I wonāt get any useful service, I wonāt have a reason to subscribe.
Of course, try it. Itās pointless to wait and wield excuses around. If it sounds better even without SysOp it can only be a win for you. Once you get SysOp working youāll (presumably) get even better quality.
I can give 299$ for a lifetime licence
The point is that at this moment, it does not sound better without SysOp to one of my players to which I already compared it.
But at this point, I donāt want to make any statement. Iām waiting for Damien to fix the bug in order to evaluate it at the optimal conditions, as Damien envisioned them.
Thatās also my experience. If youāre waiting for SysOp to change your experience in significant way youāre in for a disappointment. I tried all other solutions and use Roon daily. There is very little in terms of sound quality between the various players. After all, those are all audiophile grade solutions. You may like little better interface on this or that player, and there are probably some subtle differences in sound quality. Youāll get a much bigger improvement by changing the DAC and other equipment in the reproduction chain than there will ever be among the different players.
If other solutions work better for you and youāre happy with the sound quality, just use those and live happily ever after. You might even save some money. For me the Audirvana is the most elegant stand alone computer playback solution and offers great sound quality. Thatās enough for me.
2 Likes
I completely disagree with this statement.
I would like to hear a player that sounds better than Audirvana. Which one would you recommend? Do tell me JRiver, Amarra or Roon.
I donāt want to say it in the public thread, before I could evaluate AS with SysOp.
Iāll tell to you in a private message.
EDIT
I sent you the message.
It does not work well for most others; just a few in the areas that I have already mentioned (content providers and productivity software).
Sure thanks. I donāt think anybody would mind if you tell it here. Itās open forum and so far I havenāt seen Audirvana censoring any content mentioning competitors.
I am a user of Audirvana since 2014. And Audirvana was always a reference for its SQ. Damien was always very talented developer regarding SQ.
I donāt mind saying on the thread what I told you in a private message. But since I could not test AS yet in the optimal conditions that Damien envisioned, because of this bug, I think that its better to not make a public statement at this stage.
What I can tell you is that I tried with and without the SysOp back in the day and I couldnāt tell the difference. I donāt normally use the SysOp, since I work on my primary machine while listening music.
I agree with you.
I use Audirvana players for many years, and I know that SysOp does not make a huge difference.
I am testing the Studio and I still could not hear any difference with my 3.5 - so, while I am not against subscriptions (Iād go for a Lifetime option, if āreasonablyā priced), I think Iāll stay cool on that.
1 Like
If you are able to do A/B comparisons, then youāll see that AS and Roon are nearly indistinguishable.
If you do a blind A/B, flipping a coin will give the same result in telling the difference.
1 Like
I was hoping, today being a Monday, some follow up or response from Audirvana by now.
Or maybe an update.
The problem as I see it Jim, is what does ālifetimeā actually mean?
This release has been rushed, of that there can be no denying (although Iām reasonably certain you will as you appear to be one of the few for whom Studio actually works, and I for one am happy that it does for you 
).
However the silence from Damien I believe speaks volumes. There has been almost zero interraction from him on this forum since Studio was released, and I really canāt see that thereās an army of developers, working feverishly behind the scenes, to fix the ever-growing list of bugs within the software. The lack of a remote is also a ridiculous oversite, in my opinion.
Iāve managed to listen to the grand total of 2 albums before Studio crashes. Of course, analysation of my files then begins, yet again.
Itās honestly beginning to feel like Groundhog Day. I now realise how Bill Murray mustāve felt.
With users being expected to subscribe in a couple of weeks following the ātrialā period, I do truly worry for the future of Audirvana.
Iād be surprised if the uptake on subscriptions is at the level Damien anticipated or possibly relies upon to continue development.
The ālifetimeā option should it materialise may prove to be a very short one. I for one sincerely hope it isnāt.
1 Like
I am afraid there is nothing silly in preferring the choice not to upgrade a software you are satisfied with if you find the following major release not to your convenience.
The truth is that a pay for upgrade model makes upgrade optional at every major release of a software.
For example, some users who bought in Audirvana 1.x may have shun Audirvana 2.x, only to upgrade when Audirvana 3.x came about with a proposition that appealed to them.
Even if Audirvana Studio had been marketed as Audirvana 4.x, without a subscription model, nothing guarantees that all Audirvana users would have jumped on the new release.
Your rhetoric forgets conveniently that fact, by assuming that a user always upgrades to the latest major release.
1 Like
Itās a different product yes. But it also obsoleted the original product.