Audirvana Plus 3 (official thread)

[jhwalker]

2 hours ago, Gonzbull said:

I guess I'm in the camp that is not too bothered by the licensing issue. My computers are always connected to the internet and I keep updated all the software I use. 

 

In this day and age it is harder to operate a computer without internet access. The majority of my use involves the internet. Even my Studio machine is connected to download client files and audio plugins and receive software/firmware updates for the gear amongst other things. 

 

I doubt the the majority of A+ users would care about this. Maybe extending the 2week period might appease some. 

 At the end of the day it's a $100 piece of software that's doing its job brilliantly for me. I've spent way more on single plugins for the Studio. 

If the day comes that A+ dissapears I'll move on to the next best thing. 

 

 

Same.  One of the key benefits of Audirvana is Tidal and Qobuz integration which, of course, requires a continuous Internet connection.

 

I can't even imagine running my computers offline, and don't care about licensing / activation - no one is "watching" or "collecting your information" - simply checking to make sure the key is still valid.  Doesn't seem intrusive to me.

[AudioDoctor]

Damien, my family's cabin is on an island in Lake Superior.  There is no internet connection there, unless we wanted a Satellite connection.  I suppose I could use my phone and connect it to my computer and use its connection if A+ ever acts up, but that still won't help me on the sailboat.  Lake Superior is a big lake.

 

edit: and that cell connection is spotty as well.

[AudioDoctor]

7 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

Same.  One of the key benefits of Audirvana is Tidal and Qobuz integration which, of course, requires a continuous Internet connection.

 

I can't even imagine running my computers offline, and don't care about licensing / activation - no one is "watching" or "collecting your information" - simply checking to make sure the key is still valid.  Doesn't seem intrusive to me.

 

 

It's really not intrusive, more of an inconvenience for some.

[Musicophile]

6 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

I havent budged from 2.6 as at the moment V3 seems too buggy, going by everything on both this thread and the A+ site forum, and I have no interest whatsoever in using MPA, so until Damien has time to fix the library issues as well, adding browsing by folder/file structure I'm staying put. Though that is only until I find something better because of the library problems: sooner or later someone else will produce another renderer app achieving the same excellent sound qualit but with a good library facility that can work other ways than just having perfect metadata.

 

Actually, V3 is working perfectly fine on many computers, including mine. Don't forget reading a thread like this you get a biased picture, you'll only see the bugs, not the ones that are running smoothly.

 

And I'm happy I did upgrade even though I don't have a single MQA file (nor intend to purchase any), as the SQ took another step in the right direction. 

 

As you noticed, indeed often what tends to happen is that new versions of A+ tend to show gaps in your tagging , so it's not a problem of A+ but of your tagging. I spent ages getting my tags in order, and so I barely ever have problems with my library now. I think this is time well invested no matter what other playback systems we'll use in the future (unless we all move to full highres streaming like Qobuz will soon start offering).

 

 

[mikeypas]

Aside from the licensing discussion, I'm hoping someone could help me with the recurrent Sysoptimizer error.

I encountered it (ironically) for the first time after upgrading to 3.0.5

 

I was asked to enter the admin password, to which I received the following error:

Systoptimizer error There was an error executing SysOptimizer. Not all optimizations may be done.
 Error = The operation couldn’t be completed. (kSMErrorDomainFramework error 3 - The client and tool did not match requirements.)

 

I also get There was an error executing SysOptimizer. Not all optimizations may be done.
 Error = Couldn’t communicate with a helper application.

 

I have tried disabling the spotlight option, but still get the error message.

 

Please help!

Thanks

[jhwalker]

16 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

 

It's really not intrusive, more of an inconvenience for some.

 

Understood about the inconvenience for some - there is never a situation where I'd be offline for more than two weeks (or even two hours  LOL).

 

I was reacting to some of the earlier comments about "spyware" and "monitoring" and the like - checking the validity of a license every couple of weeks is very different from "spying".

[watercourse]

28 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

 

It's really not intrusive, more of an inconvenience for some.

+1

In my case, if I have to connect my dedicated music computer only to be able to continue using software that I've already paid for, it's a big pain.

I already get regular reminders for OS updates that I don't want, and disconnecting my mac from the interwebs is the best solution to deal with this.

Really has nothing to do with sinister intrusiveness - I have many other computers and devices that can track my every move, I just want my dedicated A+ machine to transport me away from the real world, like the Calgon bubble bath commercial ;-)

[Innocent Bystander]

28 minutes ago, Musicophile said:

 

As you noticed, indeed often what tends to happen is that new versions of A+ tend to show gaps in your tagging , so it's not a problem of A+ but of your tagging. I spent ages getting my tags in order, and so I barely ever have problems with my library now. I think this is time well invested no matter what other playback systems we'll use in the future (unless we all move to full highres streaming like Qobuz will soon start offering).

 

 

 

Bad and missing metadata is indeed a problem, precisely why quite a few people have requested that Damien add a facility to the library to search/browse by folders/file structure - I posted about that on here some time back, including why trying to fix the metadata is not the answer. The same solution would either fix or provide a simple work-around to a few of the other library issues mentioned from time to time (here and on the A+ site)

[Jud]

50 minutes ago, watercourse said:

+1

In my case, if I have to connect my dedicated music computer only to be able to continue using software that I've already paid for, it's a big pain.

I already get regular reminders for OS updates that I don't want, and disconnecting my mac from the interwebs is the best solution to deal with this.

Really has nothing to do with sinister intrusiveness - I have many other computers and devices that can track my every move, I just want my dedicated A+ machine to transport me away from the real world, like the Calgon bubble bath commercial ;-)

 

If you reference the Calgon commercial, I have to give you a "like."

[Jud]

48 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

 

Bad and missing metadata is indeed a problem, precisely why quite a few people have requested that Damien add a facility to the library to search/browse by folders/file structure - I posted about that on here some time back, including why trying to fix the metadata is not the answer. The same solution would either fix or provide a simple work-around to a few of the other library issues mentioned from time to time (here and on the A+ site)

 

I thought Damien may have made a reference to this at one point - was some aspect of folder structure included as a fallback...?

[rickca]

2 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

 

Bad and missing metadata is indeed a problem, precisely why quite a few people have requested that Damien add a facility to the library to search/browse by folders/file structure

I have a bunch of albums I ripped to .wav files with EAC.  Unlike dBpoweramp, EAC doesn't support metadata in .wav files, so these rips have no metadata whatsoever.  I just have an artist\album directory structure on the Windows 10 machine I use to host my music files.

 

A+ shows me these albums just fine based on nothing but my directory structure.  Of course, there's no album artwork.  Isn't this what you want?  I've found it good enough that I've never even bothered to tag these old rips.

[Jud]

11 hours ago, jtm said:

My local iPad acts as a remote

 

Do you have updates turned off for iOS and apps on the iPad?

[Frojo]

I am another 'headless mac mini' user, stripped of its Wireless and Bluetooth capabilities, and only connected to the web via ethernet cable when i want to update software of any persuasion. All of my general /regular browsing is conducted via a MacBook Pro. Coincidentally i adopt similar practice for the Hifi, using a dedicated mains ring and separate earthing facilities which avoids feedback from other household appliances..... YMMV

Surely part of this controversy could have been avoided if the change in validation procedures was mentioned with the upgrade notes for Version 3, and not 'discovered' by a forum message.

[Jud]

14 hours ago, jtm said:

Jud, I do appreciate your position as an advocate for Audirvana, however I feel you might need to consider that other people do not feel happy with software which monitors users behaviour or activities.

 

Call me an old fart, but I do not use facebook, whats app and rubbish like that, and I listen to my music on an old 2011 MacBook Pro with Mavericks 10.9.5, within an isolated home network on fiber dedicated to music playback, with some NAS and FireWire storage attached to it.

 

My local iPad acts as a remote and controls the player, my Hue lights, etc, and there is absolutely NO need at all why I should connect all of this to the WWW.

 

Remember the old days: never change a running system.

Why should I, there is no threat as nothing is connected to the WWW advertising machine.

 

I bought the CDs, the downloads, the software, the hardware, and I simply do not like anyone to watch me, listen to me or give me pressure to buy and update stuff when I want to enjoy my music.

 

And this is why possibly I will not use Audirvana anymore soon, nor any popular spyware like Siri, Alexa, Cortana ...

 

Btw ... Vinyl is great - no updates, no DRM, no advertising ...

 

I still have my vinyl (not buying new, but have plenty from the old days that I still love).

 

Thanks for the good conversation, jtm.

 

I did want to point out that I have no "position" with regard to Audirvana.  I like it, and have occasionally corresponded with Damien and like him, so yes, the things I say here reflect that long time use and liking of the software.  But I wanted to make sure that no one took what I was saying as any sort of official position on behalf of Audirvana or Damien, or as indicating that I know anything any of you does not with regard to the licensing - I don't.

 

Having established that some of you do not like apps that connect to a server in order to update and validate, I wanted to move on to another area of discussion.  I think we can say with confidence that all of you who have been corresponding here access the Internet occasionally, or perhaps more than occasionally.  When you have accessed this site to post, you provided your username and password, or did so by means of a "cookie" stored on the computer you were using.  This information told the website you were allowed to post here.  That, it seems to me, is a similar quantity and type of information as Audirvana Plus provides.  Granted, you knew in advance this is what you were doing to be allowed to post here at CA, and it may have been nice to inform people in advance this information would be provided by Audirvana Plus, though as we've seen, it can take time and discussion before people are ready to consider this topic thoughtfully.

 

More significantly, if you spend any time on the Internet, information about your personal browsing habits, your likes and dislikes, is constantly being provided to your ISP and companies like Google.  The information provided in an hour or two of browsing is far greater in quantity, is far more personal and detailed, than anything Audirvana Plus will provide in your lifetime.  Ever used email?  Ever had a credit card and used it online *or* offline?  A driver's license?  A Social Security card in the USA or similar national identification in another country?  You have voluntarily and involuntarily provided a great deal of detailed personal information when obtaining and using each of these, and more importantly the sum total of information from all these various sources has been sliced, diced, concatenated, analyzed, and packaged for all sorts of customers you've never met and know little or nothing about.  (Has anyone corresponding here never received any single item of spam, ever?  If you have, how did they get your email address?)  If you have said something on this site, or even looked at it without ever joining and posting, you have already provided more information about yourself than the simple "Yes, licensed" that Audirvana Plus will communicate to the server.

 

You can avoid much of this, at least in the online part of your life, by using a VPN, for example, but then if you want a VPN at all you will almost certainly have to sign up and become an authorized user, and if you want a decent one, you will almost certainly have to pay and allow the VPN's servers to check that you have a paid-up membership.   (I don't know about tor, haven't used it.)

 

All of this is a very long-winded way of saying it seems to me there is no principle of privacy at issue regarding communication from an app to a server for the purpose of validating a license, providing far less information than you already have in many other aspects of your life to parties unknown and perhaps unknowable.  So I think we should focus on consideration of the practical side of the new validation mechanism.  There I think audiocanyon's suggestion, if it is possible/convenient for Damien to implement, may be a good one.

[audiocanyon]

Can someone please remind me what the latest version of 2.6 was and how I can get it?

 

Thanks.

[wwaldmanfan]

7 minutes ago, audiocanyon said:

Can someone please remind me what the latest version of 2.6 was and how I can get it?

 

Thanks.

 

http://audirvana.com/delivery/AudirvanaPlus_2.6.8.dmg

[audiocanyon]

22 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

http://audirvana.com/delivery/AudirvanaPlus_2.6.8.dmg

 

Thanks.  The v3 SQ is slightly better on my system, but 2.6 was really good too, and having some SQ is better than no SQ if i'm not connected to the internet for awhile.

[pl_svn]

@Jud my concern, and that of many others here, is not at all about privacy but about being able to run A+ on a dedicated machine *not* connected to the outside world or when traveling, on vacation (long ones  ), with no internet access. that's all!

 

looks nowadays everyone is taking for granted that everyone is connected to the internet all the time  which is *not* true at all (for different reasons and/or... in many countries, not necessarily third world ones)

[Jud]

59 minutes ago, pl_svn said:

@Jud my concern, and that of many others here, is not at all about privacy but about being able to run A+ on a dedicated machine *not* connected to the outside world or when traveling, on vacation (long ones  ), with no internet access. that's all!

 

looks nowadays everyone is taking for granted that everyone is connected to the internet all the time  which is *not* true at all (for different reasons and/or... in many countries, not necessarily third world ones)

 

Right, that's why I mentioned (if you read all the way to the end - it was a long note, so if you didn't you are forgiven [especially considering the season  ]) audiocanyon's idea, where he talked about an app he uses that if it hasn't "heard from you" in 30 days tells you to connect to the Internet to validate some time in the next 30 days.  I think 60 days to validate would take care of the vast majority of Audirvana users.  But I haven't asked Damien whether this is convenient/possible/preferable for him.

[win32pro]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Right, that's why I mentioned (if you read all the way to the end - it was a long note, so if you didn't you are forgiven [especially considering the season  ]) audiocanyon's idea, where he talked about an app he uses that if it hasn't "heard from you" in 30 days tells you to connect to the Internet to validate some time in the next 30 days.  I think 60 days to validate would take care of the vast majority of Audirvana users.  But I haven't asked Damien whether this is convenient/possible/preferable for him.

I was under the mistaken assumption that this was all about the convenience of paying customers, not the vendor.

As to the possibility - static license worked in previous versions, it is used by other vendors, so I would assume that yes, it is possible.

[pl_svn]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

I think 60 days to validate would take care of the vast majority of Audirvana users.

 

my last holiday in Brazil lasted 6 months 

 

[Innocent Bystander]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Right, that's why I mentioned (if you read all the way to the end - it was a long note, so if you didn't you are forgiven [especially considering the season  ]) audiocanyon's idea, where he talked about an app he uses that if it hasn't "heard from you" in 30 days tells you to connect to the Internet to validate some time in the next 30 days.  I think 60 days to validate would take care of the vast majority of Audirvana users.  But I haven't asked Damien whether this is convenient/possible/preferable for him.

Whilst I personally wouldn't have a problem with that approach normally, and it would get around temporary connection problems including at Damien's end (though doesn't fit all, as others have observed), it still leaves the niggling question of longevity for what to me is a fundamental part of my hifi kit (or rather I am anticipating will be if Damien improves the library), when I wouldn't want to have to start all over again trying to find something suitable if the licence check was broken permanently at the other end for any reason.

[Innocent Bystander]

13 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I thought Damien may have made a reference to this at one point - was some aspect of folder structure included as a fallback...?

 

Has he made such a reference? If so I've clearly missed it, and must be re v3 as not so in 2.6 that I'm using still. And he hasn't responded when I've asked on here if v3 has addressed it, nor when others have asked on the A+ site forum.

[Musicophile]

While I think the regular license validation issue may have been blown a bit out of proportion here (my guess is that it is a non issue to more than 80% of the user base and I don't believe Damien has any incentive of spying on us), I must admit I'm personally struggling to understand WHY the software needs to do the regular checks, with a business model that is based on a one off purchase. 

 

The rationale for regular checking is obvious in a subscription model, but here the entire purpose of this completely escapes me. 

[Innocent Bystander]

12 hours ago, rickca said:

I have a bunch of albums I ripped to .wav files with EAC.  Unlike dBpoweramp, EAC doesn't support metadata in .wav files, so these rips have no metadata whatsoever.  I just have an artist\album directory structure on the Windows 10 machine I use to host my music files.

 

A+ shows me these albums just fine based on nothing but my directory structure.  Of course, there's no album artwork.  Isn't this what you want?  I've found it good enough that I've never even bothered to tag these old rips.

Can you confirm if that is a new feature with v3, not documented by Damien? I can't find a feature for doing that with 2.6: My albums are all sorted in genre folder/artist folder/album folder on a drive in my MacMini, and A2.6 doesn't segregate by my genre choices, and splits, say, the Beatles into 3 bifferent artists, 'Beatles, The', 'Beatles' and 'The Beatles' according to the metadata, ignoring the fact that I have single folder for 'Beatles'.