Audirvana Studio

[lucretius]

On 5/9/2021 at 7:52 PM, Jud said:

Something I'm quite interested in is the capability of playing radio stations. Yes, I have satellite radio with a large number of channels, but each concentrates on a relatively narrow genre and so is not so great for discovering interesting new/unknown music outside that narrow genre.

 

I miss radio stations where I used to live that were excellent for this sort of thing (or just enjoying listening to music), such as XPN, the University of Pennsylvania station. And depending on the sound quality, it might remove the need for an FM tuner.

 

Can't you already get internet radio stations through a free app?  E.g. Tune-In, Audials, etc.

[lucretius]

I got Audirvana for Windows when it first came out, then later, 3.5.  I didn’t expect much of it at the time but thought it would be a good idea to support it to encourage development (for Windows).  I never really used it much as I have better options.  Nonetheless, I expected the software to mature somewhat.  But in my view and to my disappointment, this never really happened.  Goodbye Audirvana!  YMMV.

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

 

 

Try Roon.....you'll never look back!!   Audirvana could not carry Roon's jock strap!!!

I do use Roon and love it - I have a lifetime subcription.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, idesign said:

In light of the Audirvana Studio announcement, I decided objectively reevaluate Roon (v.1.8.790) after several years of not using it. There is a very apparent difference in the sound and I perceive to Audirvana (v3.5.44) to be darker and more faithful to the recording whereas Roon seems to be brighter and have a digital glare. I have not been very active on Audiophile Style and I am wondering if my impressions of Roon 1.8 are consistent with other members?

 

All bit-perfect players (including free software) sound the same to me (at least in Windows).  [I have Roon and Audrivana 3.5.]

 

 

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

What you hear isn't for me to disagree with, but just thought I'd mention there is no 'bit-perfect' player I know of, unless you mean something with what most people would consider unacceptably high levels of intermodulation distortion.  Everything else either does oversampling and/or delta-sigma modulation itself or optionally leaves them to be done by your DAC.  Different algorithms are used for these steps in the different players that offer them.  Audibility of these differences is debated, but they are measurable and measurements have been posted here at AS.

 

The software players do not modulate anything -- they send bits downstream.  If an algorithm is applied by the player to alter the bits, then it is no longer bit-perfect.  In that case, you are thus betting that some algorithm in a software player (e.g. HQPlayer) can make an audible improvement over what is done in the DAC.  Seems to me that whether there will be any audible improvement depends very much on the DAC (or other downstream hardware).  In any case, I do have HQPlayer (version 3) and did not notice an audible improvement (with my equipment). 

 

 

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I will say this after using Audirvana Studio for a little bit and poking around the app, those of you writing it off without even seeing/trying it, may want to reconsider. This is a vastly different app and has features that no other app at any price offers. 

 

I get a free trial, so I'll check it out for curiosity sake.  As an aside, when Adobe went with subscriptions, that motivated me to acquire a perpetual license with Capture One (at a reasonable discount).  Now, I'm so glad I did.  Not only is it better than Lightroom, it's cheaper for me over the long run.  And I can still use my old copy of Photoshop CS6 for the rare occasions I need it.  Similarly, if I ever have to pay for Office 365, I'll ditch it for Libre Office. For me, it's not so much whether a software subscription in itself is "worth" it, rather it's about how best to spread around my limited dollars.

[lucretius]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

My larger point, though, was that if you do not hear differences between the filtering algorithms of different player software choices, there's no sonic reason to use a software player other than the one that comes with the operating system.

 

I disagree.  There's the presentation, search abilities, library handling, integration with streaming resources, ability to use different sound drivers in exclusive mode, etc. to consider.  As well, Windows Media Player (Windows) and iTunes were absolutely horrible.

 

 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

"...*sonic* reason...."

 

Edit: You know Windows has WASAPI exclusive mode, right?

 

WASAPI doesn't support native DSD. In any case, you could never completely trust Windows not to interfere with the WASAPI driver.  If a DAC came with its own ASIO driver, that always worked better (e.g. the ASIO driver bypasses the Windows mixer),  And iTunes and Windows Media Player did not work in exclusive mode. Worse, Windows Media Player used to (I believe it still does) overwrite your artwork with a thumbnail size pic -- didn't even save the original file.  iTunes didn't even play flac files -- never mind DSD. And no on-the-spot sample rate changes for either.  IIRC, if your routing audio from one app to another, it will not work with WASAPI in exclusive mode (again making sample rate changes problematic).

 

 

 

[lucretius]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You work there?

 

Not that wonderful according to a few recent posts here. 

 

I believe that's all related to the introduction of Roon 1.8.  I'm sure it will all work out.

[lucretius]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Calling customers who don’t stream dinosaur isn’t really related to a version number. 

True.   

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, Jud said:

"Sigma-delta modulation," which is used to convert the file to DSD or other low word length format, is available in Audirvana, HQPlayer, and perhaps other software players. If not done there, it's done in the DAC chip (with the exception of a handful of DACs).

 

When there's no conversion of a-d or d-a, I loath to call it a "modulator".  Reminds me of a cable modem -- where exactly is the modem?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Heh, I understand, but I'm not the one who named the process. 😀

 

Probably named by a software programmer.  You know, the ones who cheapened the title “engineer”.  😒

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, lucretius said:

 

Probably named by a software programmer.  You know, the ones who cheapened the title “engineer”.  😒

 

And before I take the heat for that comment I should note that I knew a few programmers who were friggin' geniuses and also knew some engineers who did nothing more than sell equipment (not that there's anything wrong with that). To me the use of the title is about (publicly) recognized certification and professional accreditation, common body of knowledge, adherence to and accountability for professional standards of practice and ethics, etc., etc.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, arlese said:

I hear all the pros, again not my problem whether revenue dries up or revenue curve is flattened. Innovate and sell me something new or price it high enough to justify staying in business - why do you think Herman Miller chairs are so expensive? I’ve had mine for 37 years, one and done.

 

I'm sitting in my Aeron chair right now. One of the best purchases I ever made.

[lucretius]

5 hours ago, WAM said:

 

I agree. But there is another law you should not forget: it's not about what it costs, but what it yields.

 

 

 

So, what does it yield?

[lucretius]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, that’s the purchase model. You pay for the whole thing.
 

Subscribe until you no longer want the app. This way you never pay for the app if you aren’t using it. 

 

It's always a trade off -- pay up front but risk that you may let the app may fall by the wayside (normally, if you get a couple of years out of it, your ok) OR pay a subscription fee which invariably costs you more money in the long run but gives you the option to stop paying when you want (this is good when your not sure you can get a couple of years out of it, so you minimize your risk but you pay extra for the privilege.)   

 

For the pay up front model, the way the developer makes money is to introduce major upgrades*.  Current users can decide whether or not to upgrade.

 

*When the developer doesn't even introduce needed minor fixes/upgrades, it's not likely he will retain his entire customer base. 

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, Whya Duck said:

That license you “own” when you purchase software is worthless without the continued support of a developer to enhance and maintain the app thru future OS releases.

 

I am still using Photoshop CS6 and I haven't paid a dime since I first purchased it (or rather the license).

[lucretius]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting also that nobody has commented on JRiver’s pricing model. Those who want continued updates need to pay every year, thus it’s a back door subscription model. At least the old versions still work for those who don’t pay, but I’m willing to bet there’s a significant cost of those users posting in the JRiver forum seeking support. 

 

JRIver Media Center is a "mature" piece of software.  You can skip a few upgrades without significant downfall.  Nonetheless, I normally get the latest upgrade at the special pre-order price.  E.g the pre-order upgrade price for MC28 is $19.98 for one OS or $27.98 for all three OS's (Windows, MacOS, Linux).  You cannot fault JRiver prices.

[lucretius]

39 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I am still using Photoshop CS6 and I haven't paid a dime since I first purchased it (or rather the license).

 

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ah, a software developer’s worst nightmare 🤣

 

The sad part is that it took me almost as many years to learn how to use it.  🙂

[lucretius]

46 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Except that JRiver is on major version 28, while Audirvana is on major version 3 (after 11 years).  HQP is on major version 4, costing in the mid200s for a license. And Roon we've talked about.

 

In terms of cost over time, you can see the levels that developers consider sufficient, and Audirvana has just begun to get to the  lower range of those levels now with version 4.

 

 

 

In the case of Audirvana, going from 3 to 3.5 was a major upgrade and cost $84.42 CAD and you still had to pay extra for the iOS app (no Android app) at least before the 3.5 upgrade -- and in my view did not offer any significant enhancements.  Further, for Windows, there wasn't anywhere near 11 years from first issue (maybe 4.5 months beyond 2 years).

 

Putting the above aside, I believe Audirvana is a better product on MacOS -- On the Windows version, they haven't even corrected for keyboard control yet.  Similarly, JRiver Media Center is a better (more robust) product on Windows than it is MacOS.  So choice of OS may influence one's decision.

 

[lucretius]

20 hours ago, greyscale said:

How is Studio to be made available?. Email or via A+ 3.5 Update??

 

There will be a download link on their website, when it is released.  https://audirvana.com/try

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, RunHomeSlow said:

it is still working in Audirvana Studio...

 

 

 

Were you a beta tester?

[lucretius]

Audirvana Studio is now out boys.

[lucretius]

7 minutes ago, wolft said:

I got no email as Audirvana user 

 

You have to go to the website and when you click on "try", they will send you an email.

https://audirvana.com/try/

[lucretius]

23 minutes ago, Musicophile said:

Is anybody else stuck in the library migration? The bar doesn't seem to be moving.

 

 

 

 

It took a long time to "analyze" my library -- and I'm sure it's only a fraction of the size compared to @The Computer Audiophile.

 

My phone app can load a library much quicker.