Web Interface for Audirvana

I know, I’m just being me… I either put the vinyl on the turntable, or the cd in the player, or hit play in Audirvana. It’s all to the same end, listening to my music, with the least amount of effort.
So long as all these additions do not impact the SQ of Audirvana , or the simplicity of clicking on an album and hitting play, this is my concern.


I’m totally with you , I can screen mirror to the telly with the Mac. I have an app with an extension that lets you display and control your playback. Heck if I ever use that stuff unless I’m showing off the system and sharing some music with others. Typically the screen is in screensaver or off or I’m in another room and all you see are the speakers. I can see both sides and @DGrigorescu is right that the marketplace seems to want/demand it. But I’m thinking that the team has plenty of stuff on the plate to do already. Hopefully down the road they will have some time and a larger team.


One example is the database errors. I read a discussion yesterday and the user canceled his subscription because of them. I think when you add a music folder if a file/folder have invalid characters or is locked a message should popup: “The file “asdf.flac” cannot be added. What do you want to do? 1=Abort 2=Ignore and skip these items 3=Ignore but ask me every time”. This will save a lot of work from Antoine. But that’s another story.

So long as it doesn’t lead to app ‘bloat’, and doesn’t impact on the useability. I also know I’m a minority, in that I don’t have any network issues, because I don’t need. I don’t have library issues, because pretty much all I use is album view, a throwback to sorting through my vinyl - though I never had my vinyl in any order at all! - And only ever use the remote when I have friends around so I can socialise more easily.
And most, if not all, of the issues I’ve ever had with Audirvana, have been user error.


I don’t believe that Audirvana Studio has reached it’s full potential as a high-resolution playback-engine, yet… It’s all about maintaining the integrity of the digital-audio code to the output bus that gets transmitted to the connected playback components, irregardless of price of entry…

The digital-audio/music production world is not in stasis and the design of component-electronics-of-reproduction of these evolving music productions is not in stasis.

True, but the law of diminishing returns plays a big part, the added expense of research, the added cost to the end user, for except in possibly your case :grinning:, no noticeable improvements in SQ, If Audirvana’s audio engine remained as is, it would be more than good enough for everyone but the most gifted of listeners, or the most gullible, not sure which!


Surely your ears should tell you that?

1 Like

Your ears should tell you whether or not what you’ve upsampled to DSD512 in Audirvana was first upsampled to 24/96 by the vendor or whether it was originally 24/96?

This holds true for the present state…

Evolution is inevitable… How and why Audirvana evolves in the context of high-performance digital-audio music reproduction, is not dependent on the development team being innovators… They just need to produce a product that excels in the relevant contextual aspect(s) of high-performance digital-audio reproduction… I’m not sure this has been codified, however I agree that many find the sound-quality a benchmark at this stage, and a representative example of the “state-of-the-art” in digital-audio players…

As computer platforms evolve, perhaps more elements of convenience can be imbued in Audirvana, without impinging on the elements of the program that have been refined so to provide the such a high level of high-performance digital-audio reproduction… This question of whether or not system-level performance will affect the established level of sound-quality of Audirvana Studio when user conveniences are implemented, may be answered in the Apple M2/MacOS platform technology.

All of which misses my point entirely.
I think we’ve probably reached the point where, though measurable, the improvement in SQ will be so negligable as to be indescernable to all but the very few who have bat-like hearing, and that the cost of this is disproportionate to any such minimal gains.


Your ears should tell you if the music you are listening to is high quality, yes - the rest is just numbers, and doesn’t matter, surely?

1 Like

We are moving into the psychoacoustic era… a transformative playback experience… Plain vanilla stereo as we have become accustomed to, is an anachronism… If the computer platform/OS can handle superfluous UI elements, without impinging on the sound-quality… well… some need them, some don’t need them… Personally speaking, my needs are simple.

So when I said “hi res,” I’m speaking of higher than CD resolution - 24/88.2, 24/192, DSD…

We’ve all heard well recorded CDs and badly engineered higher resolution recordings, so while I completely agree your ears should tell you if a track was well recorded, I was saying something slightly different, which is that higher resolution tracks are not all necessarily well recorded, while some CDs I’ve heard have great sound.

What Audirvana does is more of a truth in labeling thing. It can help tell you if what the label sold you as 24/96 (or whatever other high resolution rate), almost always at a price premium, is in fact a 24/96 recording, or started out as an ordinary CD and was then upsampled to fool you, the consumer, into paying more.


Ok, I get it.
If you’re paying a premium, you want to be sure you’re getting a premium product. But if you can’t tell if you’re getting the premium product you paid for without knowing the numbers, is it worth the premium?.. If you follow my train of thought.

( Devil’s advocate and that sort of thing )


Not attempting to be arguementative here mate, but if the original 16/44.1 is remastered/recombobulated ( ® Ironz) to 24/96 or higher, is Audirvana able to determine this?
Honest question fella :+1:

1 Like

Yes, it can help determine that. Have you ever tried the scan capability?

Apologies that I’m not at home at the computer, or I’d send a screenshot.

I’ve sen the scan capability, never use it. It adds nothing to my listening experience.

1 Like

You can see also that regular cd were in fact mp3

1 Like

Though it doesn’t change what I hear, in music as in most things, I like to get what I pay for.


I understand that.