Updates to Audirvana 3.5

Serious question.

Will any bug fixes for Studio filter down to Audirvana 3.5 (where they share the same code and bugs) ?

@Antoine ?

On the Facebook page of Audirvana, a guy named Wes Jansen asked:

" Will Audirvāna continue to support the original version—can the original still be used as always?"

Audirvana answered him:

" Hello Wes Jansen, the 3.5 version can still be used without limit of time but we won’t add new feature to it and only make update for critical broken feature."

So no worry about critical broken features.

IMO, it means no new features, no bug fixes. Only updates if the most important features of the player stop from functioning. For instance, if you can not stream or can not play local files, there will an update for sure. But the message on Facebook does not say for how long.

That’s my whole problem. 3.5 was a OK as a proof of concept but it sorrily needed UI bugs fixed. That never happened. During the trial I saw the same bugs in Studio.

Was there among them a bug that you would consider as being “critical”?

I guess these bugs would not be considered “critical” because you could still play music and use the existing functionality (no matter how amateurish).

If a fix is done for Studio and it is applicable to 3.5, then I don’t see why the fix should not be migrated to 3.5.

I don’t see why it would be done, since A3.5 won’t bring any new revenue to Audirvana.
Audirvana has a clear interest that A3.5 users migrate to AS rather than migrating bug fixes from AS to A3.5.

So, then it’s all about the dollars (euros) only, and there’s not a hint of providing service to the community?

This is how one runs a business. IMO, A3.5 will remain forever buggy and slow.
And if you want its bug free and smooth derivate, you’ll have to subscribe to AS.
For providing service, there are Foobar, MusicBee and alike…

I really don’t think it’s the best way to run a business. YMMV.

It seems to be the way that was chosen, since Audirvana stated that future updates will fix only “critical broken features”.

What is the best way to run a business according to you?

If I don’t see a real commitment from Audirvana, then why should I subscribe?

What you say is true. But many users, especially those who stream, have for only alternative Roon.
So some will choose Audirvana, because it’s cheaper. Some will choose it, because it seems to sound better… But they will also leave it at the moment that they will find a better/cheaper alternative. No commitment works both ways.


Those 2 little updates of yesterday are not even release yet for everybody, so just wait before complaining about something not even out…

I don’t see why Damien would not update 3.5 for at least de 2gb bug in windows, can’t remember the other :grinning:

Wait and see

You may be right. But on the Facebook page of Audirvana, it’s written that Audirvana will make updates to A3.5 only for critical broken features.
And these bug fixes are not “critical broken features”.

Since 3.5 is a discontinued release, all updates to it are goodwill gestures.

It’s a business, not for the community. It’s not open source free software, where talented coders works together without any certain profit, just with some donations. And because of this most people have bigger expectations (want a quick answer to their questions directly from the developer or his team, want an almost zero bug software, even team viewer asistance). Because money makes the difference - for both parts.

1 Like

It is a very small company. They probably don’t have enough employees for that. You knew it before subscribing.

1 Like

I agree and I am talking generally speaking, not about me, I am mostly satisfied, especially with sq. Also radios are a plus for me and sounds better than with other apps. I feel the things are in a good direction, I installed the unofficial test version (1.6.2) and works better: no more problems with radios, less cpu usage, very good response time (with my old system) and better sound with my ASIO driver.


Does it sound better than A3.5?