Studio got an equalizer in the latest update. Why not Origin? My understanding is that until now the two different versions have been equivalent as to features apart from streaming.
1 Like
I imagine (hope) it is coming soon.
“Where on earth did you find that?” he exclaims excitedly.
1 Like
Hi everyone, we do not plan to add the EQ to Audirvāna Origin for the moment. I’m sorry for this confusion as it was a mistake on the FAQ.
it’s not right I hope that in the future it will also be added in origin
1 Like
How is this justified? Or even explained? The deal with Origin always was that it was the full Audirvāna, but without the streaming part. I cannot see a logical technical reason as the EQ applies specifically to the local library for the “live” part or any logical one. Is there a new policy to punish buyers of Origin? Please explain.
4 Likes
I am also very desirous of the inbuilt EQ in Origin.
I quote Antione:
“… we do not plan to add the EQ to Audirvāna Origin for the moment.”
Phil
UPDATE:
I just subscribed to Studio just to try out the EQ.
It is very smooth. I’ll play around with it tomorrow and feedback,
Phil
1 Like
It sure seems to be, not a clever move since Origin users are the ones still buying music often, so also punishing artists in a sense, streaming platforms do not pay them much. In any case there are so many good VSTs out there, take your pick/s.
I purchase all of my music (Audirvāna Studio user) no streaming for me, my library contains rips of CD’s and SACD’s and various high-resolution downloads that I’ve purchased over the years… 
Seems that this decision to enhance the value of Studio over Origin is purely a decision to drive potential new users to the subscriber model over the one time purchase option. This is an increasing preference for software vendors as it affords many advantages from their perspective. In the case of small vendors such as Audirvana the advantages of a more consistent and predictable revenue stream over the more intermittent one time purchase/paid upgrade model are significant (google “why do software vendors prefer subscription versus purchase model”) but the main ones to my mind are;
- The subscription model offers a much more predictable income forecast that enables them to manage development resources/cost more efficiently and reduces the risk of insolvency.
- Changes in trends in size of the subscriber base gives them more frequent feedback on whether they are developing the software in a manner that users want, or, in the decreasing subscriber base scenario, alerts them that they need to improve their offering compared to the competition.
In my case I use Audirvana Studio but only use it to play my local purchase library. Why? Because the enjoyment I get from using Audirvana means I have a vested interest in the continued development of the product and would like to see that maintained into the future. A truly symbiotic relationship…
As regards your comment that Origin users are more beneficial to the music industry as they purchase more music is not true in a lot of reported cases. I have a subscription to Qobuz Sublime as it allows me to source new music that I like at which point I purchase it and download it to my local library. This results in me probably purchasing way more albums than I otherwise would due to increased exposure to new artists. I typically have purchased 50-100 albums per year since I started on the lossless/high resolution music hobby.
I undertsand a preference for owning your software ( I hate the rip off that is Adobe Creative Cloud!) However in the case of Audirvana which gives me more personal pleasure than any other software I use I am happy to adopt, what is after all, a low cost subscription to help their success and ensure my enjoyment into the future.
3 Likes
I purchase all of my music (Audirvāna Studio user) no streaming for me , my library contains rips of CD’s and SACD’s and various high-resolution downloads that I’ve purchased over the years…
Stupidest answer ever…
Why using Studio then, and not be an Origin user ??? See the bold text, as you like to say… Yes, don’t try to answer this back 
Assuming everyone using Studio streams their music is rather closed minded. I use Studio because I have a very old last.fm profile I wish to use, which is not available in Origin. And now for the EQ, too.
Otherwise I purchase all my music, especially from Bandcamp.
You think he is listening to radio stations…
i was not talking to Studio users, to him…
Now he will say he is… just to continu argueing
Just find a nice EQ plugin which could be much better than the Audirvana EQ and quit whining about it…
Define what “better” means in the context of the Audirvāna EQ Studio equalizer that is integrated into the Audirvana Studio audio-engine signal flow… … How do you even quantify “better” in the realm of EQ plug-ins? 
I also have a vested investment in the product… i renew my license to make the devrlopment continu and the EQ is supposed to be added in later. If not, will certainly ask for a refund for false advertising…
Antione, sorry to hear that since this is a common feature of the competition. It is also one I have learned to appreciate in the Wiim I use for streaming between Mac and DAC. Choosing not to include the equalizer in Studio and not Origin simultaneously worries me. Is this an upgrade Origin users will end up having to pay for or are only practicalities at play?
I have used Audirvana since about 2012 and purchased all upgrades. I stopped at Studio as I have no interest in streaming services and there is no chance in hell I will buy software on subscription. I have been burned more than once - sadly companies and software come and go. Thus I was beginning to look elsewhere, but luckily your company had a change of mind and released Origin.
I was led to believe/under the impression that I bought a “real” lifetime license in 2022 and a product which would have feature parity with Studio, except for streaming. It has been that way until now.
I just checked the description of Origin. To my surprise, “a lifetime license” is now a subscription model by another name: One gets (albeit a minimum of) two years service + whatever new feature(s) Damien et al. decide to include during that time period. The touted new features by “upgrading” - Linux and NAS - may be relevant for some, but not me and I assume most ordinary users. But what bothers me most is that Origin is now on a de facto subscription model, and that a short term one, and btw dependent on calling home to be functional.
I am not about to jump ship, but I will be looking a lot harder at the competition.
In my case Wiim. Their software is being developed at break neck speed and in many if not most ways the feature list now equals or surpasses both Studio and Origin, lately by including even room correction “for free”. Of course Wiim’s software is not really free. It requires Wiim hardware, but e.g. a Wiim Pro steamer is about 180 Euros compared to Origin’s two year software subscription price of about 120 Euros. Perhaps this is comparing apples and oranges, but Wiim is an example of the mounting feature and pricing challenges facing Audirvana from a user standpoint.
I was a tinkerer in 2012 when I entered the Audirvana universe. I still consider myself a Hifi enthusiast, but nowadays I am mostly interested in listening to music with ease of use and not too much tinkering. For me, the Wiim way seems increasingly compelling. In my environment features such as an equalizer and roomcorrection are way more valuable than being able to tweak rBrain/SoX.
I hope my fears about the decision not to roll out the equalizer for Origin are unfounded. I didn’t read the fine print when I bought Origin three years ago in 2022, so I cannot rule out I missed something. But until proven otherwise, my view is that it would be a breach of contract/false advertisement if my fears turn out to be true.
2 Likes