Please implement a Web Interface for Audirvana. By having a nice responsive Web UI it would allow control from any device with the web browser.
Make it discoverable using DNS at audirvana.local (customisable). You could run a REST API on it and have the Audirvana Remote use that same API. This would resolve the Remote’s connectivity issues that are plaguing the current Remote implementation and make the setup much easies.
You could run an embedded web server, and the user would have the option to run it or not run it.
I use a raspberry pi with Volumio since Volumio has its own Web UI.
I use my raspberry pi with Volumio as a renderer and launch the browser on the smart TV. Finally, enter the IP address of the raspberry pi and the information of the song which is playing on raspberry pi can be displayed on the smart TV.
It works just like ROON. You still have to use Audirvana Remote app to control Audirvana, not by Volumio Web UI.
For UI this sounds very nice. The thing I’d be concerned about is any effect on sound quality. Of course Audirvana has a UI and a remote interface now, so the question would be whether running a web server would be a heavier or different type of load.
Edit: One other thing that comes to mind is responsiveness. How snappy would a web page display be if it needed to load a few thousand album cover thumbnails?
Why? Only if it’s bad coding. I remember I ran a local web server around 15 years ago on a very poor Windows computer with minimum impact on system resources. Today computers are much much stronger. It can display only 100 or 250 elements per page, I think it’s a good idea.
I don’t know too much coding, other people on the forum knows more. But enough to say what I said. At least I used many type of Windows apps from '99 til today so have an idea about normal resource consumption (CPU / RAM / HDD / Pagefile). A local web server / web interface is very light on resources if is used only by few people, as others said too.
EDIT: I have to add something: protected wih a strong passowrd and running on a custom port, not 80 or 8080. Or on a secured IPv4 NAT.
Both features (web interface / remote app) can work without problems. The problem with Audirvana is the rythm of progress, and that’s because of the very small team. For a paid app is innacceptable imo. Most subscribers continue to pay because of sq, because they didn’t find other alternatives or don’t want to complicate their lives, they want to remain on a simple PC/Mac software solution.
I may not be the right person to reply, since I actually like the configurability of Audirvana’s UI (I also can’t think of another high quality player that allows editing of metadata, lets you know if what you’re playing is true hi res, etc.), but to me the fact that the sound quality has continued to be superior merits the reasonable payment. Why would I spend thousands on audio equipment and then want to play music through it at less than best quality?
I have to make it clear. I am not talking about replacing Audirvana. I am talking how to display song’s infomation to Smart TV since there is no this kind of function on Audirvana(but there is on Roon). I used to use Audirvana streaming music to raspberry pi (dietpi with GmediaRender), now I use Audirvana streaming music to the same raspberry pi but with Volumio. Here is the deployment of my system.
More computational overhead and absorption of operational resources in regard to display management, etc, must be isolated from impacting the fundamental Audirvana audio-engine architecture, so to maintain the established high-level of playback sound-quality that many subscribers like myself, fully appreciate hearing from Audirvana Studio… Speaking for myself, I don’t want Audirvana Studio sound-quality to be compromised by trying to be everything for everybody…
A web interface / remote app is a must have on these days for a software music player. Noboy talked about “everything for everyone”. Did we say something about playing videos? Making my coffee as my wife does? NO. Just few addons necesary in these days. Also speaking for myself I am usually satisfied, use it every day and pay the sub.
In your opinion…
Does having all these add ons and bells and whisles improve the SQ, or the listening pleasure of your music? I think not, ‘because you can’ is not really a valid argument. ( in my opinion )
Perhaps it’s a more pleasurable user experience vs a sound quality improvement @DGrigorescu is speaking of. Not an invalid opinion, some people like Roon for a more immersive experience while others spin vinyl to connect with their music.
I’m personally thinking that the “sound quality” is pretty much under control for the average demographic of the so called “Audiophile”. If we all had to pass a hearing test before purchasing the current gear we would probably be sitting in an empty room.
PS @reddog1 , normal people don’t use Audirvana only special people do.
I didn’t say this. Speaking for myself I agree with you. Because I have a small aprtment, an usb dac, an amplifier and speakers. I don’t need upnp, remote, other things. Maybe just a radio recording feature, like any decent radio player must have in these days, especially a paid player. But when you run such a business you must put the clients shoes, and I understand by this what most of your clinets need/want. And no, I can’t believe a web interface can have a negative impact on sq. Your computer have already some processes in background. And if you don’t like the function don’t use it, so the resources should not be taken.