Audirvana Plus 3 (official thread)

[miguelito]

On 4/13/2017 at 9:18 AM, damien78 said:

Version 2 was using a license file mechanism for unlocking the trial version.

This was too complex and confusing for many users. So I moved to a license number key scheme that is the one to which users are used to.

 

Except the few softwares that want to be hacked and stolen in a few minutes, all commercial softwares use a server validation mechanism.

Some vendors have even moved to a subscription model, something I’m not willing to do as I think (maybe I’m wrong) you prefer to fully own your own copy of Audirvana Plus and give you the choice to get the benefits of the next major version though a paid upgrade, or remain with the current one.

 

The need to check on regular basis the server is meant to check if a license has not been burnt because it has been widely shared by someone who thought software developers effort should not be rewarded, though they would not think to steal the expensive hardware they have bought.

All the various app store, and popular applications use such a server validation model. FYI, Adobe and Microsoft have seen a real decrease in piracy rate after implementing such mechanism.

 

There is no impact on the user except the need to be connected to the Internet at least once every 15 days when launching Audirvana Plus. For those who fear to not have an Internet access for long period of travel, is it for more than 15 days not connected at all? Would you prefer a whole month?

Audirvana Plus connects to audirvana.com for only two purposes:

1. To check the license

2. To check and download updates

BTW, you connect your Mac for so many other purposes (checking email, going on the web, including here on CA, …), sending audio data to a network player, …

Hi Damien,

 

On the 15 days...

 

I use A+ on my laptop and when at home I don't use it at all (I use Roon). So it is quite possible I would not have run A+ for 15 days, get on a plane, and try and run A+ on the air without internet connection. I have not yet run into this issue but I have preemptively installed v2.6.5 on my laptop just in case.

 

This has never been a problem with Adobe products (I subscribe to Lightroom, Photoshop, and Acrobat). Maybe they check but give you leeway, I don't know. 

 

As for subscription model... 

 

I am actually a supporter of this. I frankly think developers - especially those highly comitted to their products - need to get a more stable revenue stream. But I also expect implementations of this that work properly and don't suddenly block usage because of a failed network connection.

 

You will have to balance out the customers you lose out of annoyance vs your new scheme.

[Gonzbull]

I'm definitely not a fan of the subscription model. A few big software companies have tried this to the dismay of their customers ( ProTools ). This is way worse than a validity check every 2 weeks. It would be a monthly check with a payment required. 

[jtm]

Would you like your car manufacturer to check your car registration, insurance and/or service routines every 2 weeks and maybe don't let you out of your garage because it could connect to its factory ?

 

I paid for that Audirvana license with a valid credit card.

Am I suspiciuos for some reason because of doing so or why does the system now thinks it has the right to validate/re-evaluate my license every 2 weeks ?

or am I a potential software hacker or fraud artist by definition of a computer software user?

does digital / online world have another sort of law and legislation compared to analog / offline REAL world ?

 

Maybe us in old europe has different thinking, but I better look out for some alternative to A+...

[Gonzbull]

15 minutes ago, jtm said:

Would you like your car manufacturer to check your car registration, insurance and/or service routines every 2 weeks and maybe don't let you out of your garage because it could connect to its factory ?

 

I paid for that Audirvana license with a valid credit card.

Am I suspiciuos for some reason because of doing so or why does the system now thinks it has the right to validate/re-evaluate my license every 2 weeks ?

or am I a potential software hacker or fraud artist by definition of a computer software user?

does digital / online world have another sort of law and legislation compared to analog / offline REAL world ?

 

Maybe us in old europe has different thinking, but I better look out for some alternative to A+...

Not a very good analogy I'm afraid. What if cars had no vin numbers or registration and your car got stolen? Like I said before I've seen A+ available for free download on torrent sites. And it's been downloaded thousands of times. 

The digital/online world does operate on a different system  to the analog/offline world. 

[Booster MPS]

I am sure that the A+ license validation is an issue for some who might use it for extended periods of time off line.  I totally get that.  What I don't understand is the outrage/personal offense taken by those unaffected by the validation check, and more so were using it happily in their system prior to this coming up.  Pirating is a reality in the world that we live in, and developers/artists want to protect their IP.  The negative actions of the few unfortunately have a minor infringement on the many.  

 

But here is the thing - the validation check is not taking anything from you or searching your computer for personal information to social engineer.  Maybe we can all just assume good intent here knowing that any computer connected to the internet by default has to interact with the internet?

[jtm]

Fair enough, I do respect your comment.

 

However I do not like to get controlled or supervised by software I have paid for. I am not into torrents and such, but if some software programmer thinks potentially all his (long year, now third product generation) customers is then I do not share this position.

[wwaldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, Gonzbull said:

I've seen A+ available for free download on torrent sites. And it's been downloaded thousands of times.

 

If you aren't happy with Audirvana, you can get Amarra Symphony ($649) for free off the torrent sites, too. LOL

[jtm]

6 minutes ago, Booster MPS said:

  Maybe we can all just assume good intent here knowing that any computer connected to the internet by default has to interact with the internet?

 

You may not have read my post where I have described the way I listen to music, but actually my "computer audio" is always offline playing in a dedicated home network.

 

I like the convenience of accessing my library like this and it keeps my listening room clean. Sounds good, no more walls loaded with CDs, LPs and stuff.

 

Just like moving from physical media to file based data.

 

Guess I will run my Melco as a streamer more often now, not only as NAS storage. So good to have other (offline) options ...

[watercourse]

1 hour ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

If you aren't happy with Audirvana, you can get Amarra Symphony ($649) for free off the torrent sites, too. LOL

 

Too bad Amarra doesn't sound like A+, or it might be an option!

[wwaldmanfan]

4 minutes ago, watercourse said:

 

Too bad Amarra doesn't sound like A+, or it might be an option!

 

A former employer of mine, who was a cheapskate, used to say, "It tastes better when it's free."

[watercourse]

8 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

A former employer of mine, who was a cheapskate, used to say, "It tastes better when it's free."

 

I have a six-pack of Billy Beer that he'd love.

[edtsui]

While it will create some problems for me since I use A+ on my iMac with a headphone most of the time and listen through my stereo system with a headless Mac mini only once in while and may have problems with the 15 days checkup, I fully understand Damien's need for regular validation.  I like A+ SQ and Damien constant effort to make it a better software for all us.  I hope we will all be more understanding and more appreciative of his work and his need to safeguard his legitimate interests as a software developer.  I for one will continue to concentrate on listening to music through this wonderful software.  Perhaps Damien can change the periodicity of validation to once a month and that should cover most of us.  Thanks.

[watercourse]

22 minutes ago, edtsui said:

While it will create some problems for me since I use A+ on my iMac with a headphone most of the time and listen through my stereo system with a headless Mac mini only once in while and may have problems with the 15 days checkup, I fully understand Damien's need for regular validation.  I like A+ SQ and Damien constant effort to make it a better software for all us.  I hope we will all be more understanding and more appreciative of his work and his need to safeguard his legitimate interests as a software developer.  I for one will continue to concentrate on listening to music through this wonderful software.  Perhaps Damien can change the periodicity of validation to once a month and that should cover most of us.  Thanks.

 

Monthly should be ok with me.

[quark]

15 hours ago, jtm said:

Would you like your car manufacturer to check your car registration, insurance and/or service routines every 2 weeks and maybe don't let you out of your garage because it could connect to its factory ?

 

I paid for that Audirvana license with a valid credit card.

Am I suspiciuos for some reason because of doing so or why does the system now thinks it has the right to validate/re-evaluate my license every 2 weeks ?

or am I a potential software hacker or fraud artist by definition of a computer software user?

does digital / online world have another sort of law and legislation compared to analog / offline REAL world ?

 

Maybe us in old europe has different thinking, but I better look out for some alternative to A+...

 Totally agree with everything you say, but we shouldn't really vent our anger at Damian, The existence of disrespectful selfish tw@ts on the Internet who always want something for nothing and rip off people like Damian, never pay for music, and so on, are the reasons why software retailers are forced to try and find cost-effective ways to protect themselves.

 If anyone who is complaining has ever downloaded or copied music or any software off a friend or the Internet for nothing, then they are contradicting themselves. 

 Damien is having to find a way to protect his product from evil idiots trying to steal it for nothing without costing unnecessary extra costs. 

 I totally understand what people are saying, but many are exaggerating a little. 

[stefano_mbp]

@damien78 sometime the pdf booklet is not imported in the library. Is there any kind of constrain (pdf dimension, properties ....)? It happens random ... (A+ ver. 3.0.5)

 

thanks

[Indydan]

I read that direct mode does not work with Mac OS Sierra with version 2.6 of Audirvana. Has this been fixed in version 3.05?

 

Can someone please confirm that direct mode in version 3.05 works with Sierra? 

 

Many thanks! 

[jhwalker]

23 minutes ago, Indydan said:

I read that direct mode does not work with Mac OS Sierra with version 2.6 of Audirvana. Has this been fixed in version 3.05?

 

Can someone please confirm that direct mode in version 3.05 works with Sierra? 

 

Many thanks! 

 

Direct mode (i.e., Audirvana's custom code for bypassing the Mac OS) does not work any more - it hasn't for a couple of years (since Apple turned on system integrity protection on El Capitan in 2015).  Integer mode (which is the official method Apple allows for the shortest possible path to audio hardware) continues to work.

 

Since direct mode was developed originally as a workaround for Apple removing integer access a couple years earlier, direct mode is no longer necessary, though some people keep trying to resurrect it   I suspect contravening macOS security to patch in direct mode is not a priority for Damien - he can certainly speak for himself, though.

[Indydan]

2 hours ago, jhwalker said:

 

Direct mode (i.e., Audirvana's custom code for bypassing the Mac OS) does not work any more - it hasn't for a couple of years (since Apple turned on system integrity protection on El Capitan in 2015).  Integer mode (which is the official method Apple allows for the shortest possible path to audio hardware) continues to work.

 

Since direct mode was developed originally as a workaround for Apple removing integer access a couple years earlier, direct mode is no longer necessary, though some people keep trying to resurrect it   I suspect contravening macOS security to patch in direct mode is not a priority for Damien - he can certainly speak for himself, though.

From reading the manual, I thought direct mode had to function for integer mode to work as well. So integer mode works even though direct mode doesn't? 

 

I imagine that the sound quality difference between direct mode VS integer mode must be minimal.

[Jud]

The story on direct mode as far as I understand:

 

- Direct mode was developed when Apple broke integer mode back in (IIRC) the Lion days.  It is no longer necessary for integer mode.

 

- It is essentially a driver, one that is even more stripped-down than Apple's own, which some people think contributes to better sound.

 

- Drivers interface with the kernel.  As of El Capitan and forward, Apple's System Integrity Protection (SIP) won't allow installation of such drivers without specific Apple permission, which Apple has not granted.  Damien has requested here several times for people to ask Apple (respectfully) to give permission for the Direct Mode driver in Audirvana Plus to be installed on MacOS, and he has also asked himself as a developer, but so far permission has not been forthcoming.

 

- There is a workaround to allow the installation, which is to patch the kernel, but people should not do this unless they understand the steps very precisely, have a printed copy of the instructions to hand, and have an up-to-date backup ready to install if something goes wrong.  This is not meant to scare people but to try to ensure against complaints of "I did just about what I thought you said and now my computer doesn't work!" from people who don't take these simple precautions.

[Musicophile]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

The story on direct mode as far as I understand:

 

- Direct mode was developed when Apple broke integer mode back in (IIRC) the Lion days.  It is no longer necessary for integer mode.

 

- It is essentially a driver, one that is even more stripped-down than Apple's own, which some people think contributes to better sound.

 

- Drivers interface with the kernel.  As of El Capitan and forward, Apple's System Integrity Protection (SIP) won't allow installation of such drivers without specific Apple permission, which Apple has not granted.  Damien has requested here several times for people to ask Apple (respectfully) to give permission for the Direct Mode driver in Audirvana Plus to be installed on MacOS, and he has also asked himself as a developer, but so far permission has not been forthcoming.

 

- There is a workaround to allow the installation, which is to patch the kernel, but people should not do this unless they understand the steps very precisely, have a printed copy of the instructions to hand, and have an up-to-date backup ready to install if something goes wrong.  This is not meant to scare people but to try to ensure against complaints of "I did just about what I thought you said and now my computer doesn't work!" from people who don't take these simple precautions.

Can we make this post a sticky?

 

We see the request for direct mode over and over again, and every time I'm thinking to myself "guys you really don't need a workaround to a problem that doesn't exist any more".

 

Probably @Damien78 hasn't helped himself by not keeping his manual fully up to date. 

 

Damien, how about you give your formal guidance on the issue and update your manual accordingly? Is Jud right (I think he his) and direct mode is basically just a legacy feature?

 

 

[audiocanyon]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

I

- There is a workaround to allow the installation, which is to patch the kernel, but people should not do this unless they understand the steps very precisely, have a printed copy of the instructions to hand, and have an up-to-date backup ready to install if something goes wrong.  This is not meant to scare people but to try to ensure against complaints of "I did just about what I thought you said and now my computer doesn't work!" from people who don't take these simple precautions.

 

I've done the work-around kernel file replacement twice - once right after I purchased 2.6 and then again a couple nights ago when I upgraded to the latest Sierra IOS version.  I was wondering if the upgrade would also replace my El Capitan kernel file, and yep, it sure did.  Both replacements took about 20 minutes worked worked flawlessly.

[Indydan]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

The story on direct mode as far as I understand:

 

- Direct mode was developed when Apple broke integer mode back in (IIRC) the Lion days.  It is no longer necessary for integer mode.

 

- It is essentially a driver, one that is even more stripped-down than Apple's own, which some people think contributes to better sound.

 

- Drivers interface with the kernel.  As of El Capitan and forward, Apple's System Integrity Protection (SIP) won't allow installation of such drivers without specific Apple permission, which Apple has not granted.  Damien has requested here several times for people to ask Apple (respectfully) to give permission for the Direct Mode driver in Audirvana Plus to be installed on MacOS, and he has also asked himself as a developer, but so far permission has not been forthcoming.

 

- There is a workaround to allow the installation, which is to patch the kernel, but people should not do this unless they understand the steps very precisely, have a printed copy of the instructions to hand, and have an up-to-date backup ready to install if something goes wrong.  This is not meant to scare people but to try to ensure against complaints of "I did just about what I thought you said and now my computer doesn't work!" from people who don't take these simple precautions.

Thanks for the information. I'll most likely update to Sierra (from Yosemite) since I know I won't be losing sound quality because of no direct mode. 

 

 

[Indydan]

I've had Audirvana 3 for about 10 days now. I downloaded the trial version and bought a license after 2 days. 

 

Previously, I had been using Bitperfect software with iTunes as the interface (Bitperfect does the processing, iTunes is only used for its interface and controls) for two years. I controlled my Mac Mini headless with the Apple remote app.

 

I compared both solutions: Bitperfect vs Audirvana on a good selection of music. Bitperfect sounds good, but Audirvana is better. On every piece of music I tried with both, each time the music played with Audirvana was better. Audirvana sounds smoother, less dry and brittle than Bitperfect. The sound with Bitperfect was also a little more closed in and close to the speakers.

 

It's not that Bitperfect sounds bad, it is just that Audirvana sounds better. I can't fault the sound quality of Bitperfect; especially for the price. But, the sound quality improvements with Audirvana are worth it for me. 

 

Also, I pushed the adjustments in Bitperfect to get the best sound quality. It did not always operate smoothly because of this. I would press to start an album, it would play a few seconds, then stop. It kind of stuttered every time I started a new playlist. This does not happen with Audirvana. It takes a second or two for it to load a playlist, then it starts playing without stuttering or stopping.

 

I also MUCH prefer the A+ app for iPad than Apple remote. The Apple remote gets the job done, but is somewhat rudimentary.

 

I am very happy to have discovered this fine product! 

[Indydan]

1 hour ago, Indydan said:

Thanks for the information. I'll most likely update to Sierra (from Yosemite) since I know I won't be losing sound quality because of no direct mode. 

 

 

 

I just updated my main iMac to Sierra (not the Mac I use for music) and I have been trying Audirvana on it. When I disable direct mode, the option of Mode 1 and Mode 2 for integer mode disappears. The integer mode box is still checked, but the option for mode 1 or mode 2 is gone. 

 

I am not sure what this means... 

 

On my Mac mini for music, running Yosemite, I have direct mode enabled as well as integer mode. I listened to both mode 1 and mode 2 in integer mode. I prefer mode 2. 

[audiocanyon]

8 hours ago, Indydan said:

 

I just updated my main iMac to Sierra (not the Mac I use for music) and I have been trying Audirvana on it. When I disable direct mode, the option of Mode 1 and Mode 2 for integer mode disappears. The integer mode box is still checked, but the option for mode 1 or mode 2 is gone. 

 

I am not sure what this means... 

 

On my Mac mini for music, running Yosemite, I have direct mode enabled as well as integer mode. I listened to both mode 1 and mode 2 in integer mode. I prefer mode 2. 

 

If you replaced the Sierra IOAudioFamily.kext file with the El Capitan  IOAudioFamily.kext file, I'm not sure why your integer mode choices disappear.  The Mode 1 and Mode 2 choices are still available to me on Sierra after doing the file replacement.  I prefer Mode 1 on my system.