I notice from the release notes that there is an “improved” UI in the Settings Page. Any one else somewhat upset by the changes?
Ok so font sizes were increased which results in a lack of consistency with all of the other windows and the sidebar in AS. Is this considered an improvement?
The evenly spaced tabs in the settings page (Audio, Local, Streaming etc) have now been moved to the left with uneven tab spacing. An improvement?
The white font in a lilac box for the selected DAC? Less legible than the black…… an improvement?
Whilst I understand there are individuals who refuse to wear reading glasses when on their computer (if required). And there are recruits from Roon who love massive fonts, less information available without recourse to endless scrolling to view their albums, play history etc.
To accommodate all tastes, why not just have a small option in appearance with a consistent interface as per 2.7.0 and a default addressing the scroll fanatics with larger font sizes across all windows in the app. And a large for those who want to be able to read the screen from 10 yards.
The changes in 2.8.0 are a step back in basic design principles for an app UI and has resulted in inconsistency within the app.
How much do you spend your time in the settings? Do the changes in the settings really render Audirvana unusable for you?
The biggest change I see is that previous ‘text buttons’ (where it was not very clear in the past you could click on them) are now replaced by more obvious buttons. The font changes don’t bother me at all (I only noticed them because you said so).
All in all… really a reason to revert to an older version? You do you, but I am not bothered by it at all.
And I agree with @Yohmi here. I don’t think the lounge is the right place to discuss this.
I understand you, but there are more Audirvana updates to come in the future. You can’t stay on 2.7 forever. Again how much time do you spend in the settings? Maybe once a month?
No need to delete your post. Happy to hear what impacts others.
I have mine setup to have the smallest font in appearance so didn’t really notice changes. I did however notice the Color change in the DAC box which was annoying because I didn’t think that it was changing when I changed selections.
The other think that I don’t mind is that on the iPad remote there are more Albums and Playlists showing on the screen which would be a reduction in font as well. I like being able to see more and have less scrolling.
I noticed them, and don’t feel them disturbing. But it’s a personal taste. Your initial feeling about these changes is recognizable however. There is something interesting with these kind of visual changes. They are always criticized in the beginning.
At my work we service a website for business relations, and we also have a UI lab at which we can test these things with customers.
It is very common that changes are being disliked by quite a lot of people initially. With time they get used to the changes. We performed a test where we changed back to the old style one year after. Result: for the main part the people who complained about the initial change, made complains again because we changed the visuals again.
I am not judging you here, and not stating the changes are an improvement or or whatever. Just pointing out that a lot of people do not like changes in things that are familiar.
I agree that personal taste is, obviously, personal however as someone who uses Audirvana as a windowed App on a multiscreen setup the app should not draw focus away from other open apps through a degree of consistency with OS typography and associated app design guidelines. For me Audirvana has always appeared distinct but not too alien, unlike other competitors apps.
After 2.8 changes to Settings it appears to my perception to be going in a different direction. Not an issue 2.7 still works extremely well for me.
You can stay on any version ‘forever’ should you choose…
For instance, I’m still on OSX Catalina, where I shall saty, as it works perfectly for me and my setup!
Yes, as stated I reverted to 2.7 which works well for me and my personal tastes. I sense you keep DMG’s for prior versions also! Always a prudent strategy.
I see some snags in not getting the ‘Other minor fixes’ provided in a new version…
What does the term “minor” mean in the context of a version update? Without knowing what these ‘fixes’ actually are, who are we to second-guess the value in regard to the performance of the application? What context does the term ‘stability’ actually have relationship to? We really don’t know the reality, unless privileged to these contextual changes… We only have the biases of our perceptions to assess the value of a version update and “other minor fixes”, etc, if not blatantly obvious to our eyes and ears…
I am a passionate rapid deployer of software updates but in AS’s case most of the 2.x versions have performed excellently on my setup. And the few bugs I encounter (and they are very few in my use case), I have workarounds for so I can sit where I am and monitor how the software develops before the next annual renewal date decision comes due. It would take an awful lot of other personal dislikes to drive me to give up the sound quality I perceive with AS………
I am now convinced there has been minor fixes in the sound-quality of the PCM → DSD modulation process and the playback of native DSD files via DoP on the macOS, that were not necessarily described in the notes of the version 2.7 update…
I agree with you on that one. But for those who choose to stay on an earlier version whilst it is true that you can’t “unhear” a personally perceived improvement in SQ it is also true that you can’t hear one that you have not listened to. Depends on what level of FOMO you can tolerate. If the SQ I get from AS remains the same as I perceive it to be now I would still be very happy indeed…….
Maybe they can change the font a bit?
