Audirvana Studio

[matthias]

What about the payment?

Subscription?

 

Matt

[matthias]

For someone who uses Qobuz only without having local files and without using internet radio I see no reason to "upgrade" to the new version.

 

Matt

[matthias]

12 minutes ago, Gilles said:

I have a 2011 MacBook Pro running A3.5 and High Sierra, can't run a more recent OS on this computer.

 

I have the same running Audirvana/Qobuz. So far it is perfectly working without issues same as High-Sierra.

If it is working you do not need any Audirvana support for 3.5 at all.

The single issue might be that the Qobuz API will not work somewhere in the future with this configuration.

But Spotify HiFi is on the horizon :-)

 

Matt

 

[matthias]

6 minutes ago, jos said:

Perhaps I will keep version 3.5 for years to come, because it’s free of charge, I think. Is that possible? 

 

Of course, I will do the same if I use Qobuz.

 

Matt

[matthias]

On 5/14/2021 at 12:34 AM, bbosler said:

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but an 11 year computer is like driving a 1955 Chevy and complaining it doesn't handle very well.. you need to move on

 

Thanks for your advice,

there are some people who prefer even much older horn speakers to modern speakers😀

 

Matt

[matthias]

56 minutes ago, Torq said:

 

Yes.

 

It adds a "MUSICBRAINZ_TRACKID" tag to each file.

 

Is it possible that the tag imposes a sonic signature on the file as well?

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

Yet to me, subjectively, Studio with r8brain upsampling sounds better than 3.5 with SoX did.

 

Jud,

 

did you compare Studio vs. 3.5 without upsampling?

Thanks

 

Matt

[matthias]

13 minutes ago, kerisabe said:

I did compared the two without any upsampling, and Studio sounds so much more musical/less analytical sounding due to the bloom in the mid and bass area. The timbre playing through Studio is just so much more analog sounding. 

 

Thank you for sharing, 

 

I am just wondering why some people on the Audirvana community forum describe this the other way around.

 

Matt

[matthias]

3 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said:

They mostly not complaining about the sound  :)

 

Some do and find Studio less musical sounding.

 

Matt

[matthias]

9 minutes ago, kerisabe said:

Since I also use Studio strictly for streaming online in the mean time without trying to integrate my offline collection yet. I'm very surprised people kept talking about the bad things and NONE regarding the upgrade in SQ. 

 

This is a very valuable info. I am running so far 3.5 with High-Sierra and do streaming only, no local files.

 

Matt

[matthias]

3 hours ago, kerisabe said:

both using upnp out

 

Did you try direct USB out from Mac into DAC as well?

Maybe Studio sounds better via upnp and 3.5 via USB?

Thanks

 

Matt

[matthias]

6 minutes ago, Martini said:

RE: the it sounds better than v.3.5 comments. The description of 3.5 and of Studio is that it is bit perfect, if so, how/why did the sound change?? Unless one or both are altering the source data, then the sound should be the same. If they are altering the source data with an algorithm or built-in audio unit to "improve the sound" then they are not bit-perfect and stating so is dishonest.  So what is going on? Is the data being altered or is it just hopeful anticipation convincing one that the sound has improved?

 

This discussion based on if bit-perfect then no SQ differences is obsolete.

 

Matt

[matthias]

9 minutes ago, DonaldM said:

This you get as an extra as the result of analyzing (In Yate did not see any other change in the metadata as I defined them):

 

 

 

Info from Wikipedia.

 

Matt

[matthias]

2 hours ago, JoeWhip said:

Good to hear. When the app is available, I will give it a try.

 

There is a complete thread about SQ of Studio on the Audirvana community forum:

 

https://community.audirvana.com/t/sound-quality-studio-vs-3-5/26220

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, Musicophile said:

My trial was running out tomorrow so I took the plunge and purchased the discounted 1st year subscription. 

 

Did you compare 3.5 and AS regarding SQ or musicality?

Thanks

 

Matt

[matthias]

25 minutes ago, Musicophile said:

I just upgraded my late 2017 MacBook Pro 13'' to a new M1 MacBook Air (both with 8GB/256GB). I don't have the old Intel one any more, but at first listen the new M1 sounds even better. Very "quiet", if that makes any sense. 

 

Probably expectation bias, but overall I'm very happy with the SQ of 1.5. 

 

On a different note, I'm just somewhat puzzled by the rapid inflation of the Studio version numbers. We're already at 1.5 with barely any visible changes, in just a couple of weeks. Remember the HUGE differences between A+ 1.x, 2.x and 3.5? At this speed we get there before year end. 

 

Interesting,thar the new M1 Air is superior to the old MBP, thanks for sharing.

 

I think the rapid inflation of the version numbers is made to demonstrate the progress of Audirvana with the new subscription model.

 

Studio 1.5 makes a much better impression than Studio 1.0.5.......

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, bnbayer said:

So, A+3.5 has cost me about $150 so far (Version 1 full price; upgrades to v2, v3, and v3.5, plus the iOS remote, which wasn't originally free.) For that price, I've had great sound for more than 8 years so far, and can continue as long as there are Macs which will run it. (The machine running A+ doesn't do anything else, so no need to upgrade to new Mac OSs that might eventually not run 3.5)

 

The next 8 or more years will cost me nearly $1000 ($90 per year), and I still don't own a player and to keep sending money... That's quite a price increase. It puts us in a different market.

 

The AS sound is great, but really, 3.5 sounds great already. $1000 for the next decade makes HQ Player seem like quite a bargain.  Even Roon lifetime PLUS HQPlayer. Or a NAIM hardware network player. Or...

 

 

Exactly these considerations let me stick to A 3.5 as long as possible.

Since I use Audirvana for Qobuz only a second option will be Spotify Hifi.

 

Matt

[matthias]

Very interesting comparison:

 

 

The conclusion:

The winner is Audirvana on Mac 😃

 

Matt

[matthias]

5 hours ago, routlaw said:

Good grief 3 hours long program to decided which software is preferred. Thanks for the conclusion and answer, appreciated.

 

The summary:

https://alpha-audio.net/review/live-stream-review-roon-audirvana-foobar-jriver/

 

Matt

[matthias]

8 hours ago, routlaw said:

While I am still on the trial version of Origin, yesterday I finally had the time to compare Origin to A 3.5. Initially my expectations thought this might take an hour or so of back and forth listening to several tracks, but effectively it only took one track the differences were so convincing on my system immediately.

 

Thanks for sharing, next month I will compare Studio to 3.5 with streaming from Qobuz.

 

Matt

[matthias]

On 11/20/2022 at 8:59 AM, matthias said:

Thanks for sharing, next month I will compare Studio to 3.5 with streaming from Qobuz.

 

Comparing both (upsampling deactivated) with an quite old MBP, High Sierra, 4GB RAM I prefer the older version. It is running like a Swiss clockwork, has less bugs and while Studio seems to offer more details, the older version is more organic sounding.

 

Matt

[matthias]

21 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have to wonder if AS is optimized for the newest Macs. 

You might be right. AS seems to be made for Macs with Mx chips.

 

Matt