Audirvana Studio

[Jud]

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I know this might rub people the wrong way, but I believe most software should’ve been via subscription long ago. Subscriptions strike a balance between the consumer and developer. 
 

A one time cost places risk on both parties. If consumers don’t like it after they’ve paid or want to switch to a new app, they’ve already paid a large one time cost. If consumers keep using the software for many years, it becomes a liability for the developer. To keep updating and supporting an app that no longer brings in income, is a tough one. 
 

Software requires constant work from developers. Even when one thinks an app is all good, he can’t control hardware and software changes by third parties. 
 

The cost of anything can be looked at as a monthly cost for comparison sake. It would be interesting to see what people have paid for Audirvana over the years with upgrade cost etc… and divide that by how many months it was used. It could be higher or lower than the current offering. I don’t know. Either way, it’s a model that the developer has decided doesn’t work for him. 

 

Yet another factor repeatedly mentioned in the intro video on Facebook is that a once and done model for a particular software version presents the developer with a decision about when to introduce improvements. Should the improvement be released immediately as a minor version bump at no cost, or should it be held to be released later as part of a new major version package? With a subscription model there is no such decision - any and all improvements can be released immediately.

 

It seems like it is more in tune with the rapid pace of software and hardware improvement generally these days to be able to release improvements to a particular piece of software continuously.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, jhwalker said:

Pretty brutal reaction on the Facebook livestream to the "subscription only" model :/

 

Heh, the comments were brutal in general, ranging from inaccurate (there was a comment 3.5 had not been upgraded at all in many months, not true) to ridiculous (comments that people would not purchase without a live demo during the video, when a month's free trial is being offered that will obviously tell you more about how the software works for you than watching someone else run it on video for 5 minutes).

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, mevdinc said:

I am personally very disappointed with the subscription only model. Why would anyone prefer Audirvana over Roon which does offer lifetime purchase plus HQP integration?

I can understand the need for introducing a subscription model, but having it as the only option is a very bad strategy and this will encourage a lot people either to leave Audirvana or just stay with 3.5 for as long as possible.

 

Roon lifetime $500.  HQPlayer license $245. That's about 11 years' subscription for those upgrading from 3.5, several years longer if HQPlayer undergoes a version upgrade in the next 11 years (reasonable possibility). And if Roon eliminates the lifetime subscription (which most products do after an initial period to build up capital), Audirvana is always less.

[Jud]

16 minutes ago, bobflood said:

I think Roon/HQP remains the gold standard and will cost more gold as well. :)

 

De gustibus non disputandum est.

 

Everyone should listen to what he or she likes best.

 

I would have HQP for playing on Linux in any case.  Roon on the other hand I have tried and found its information about tracks and other music I might like to mostly duplicate what I already knew, so I'm not interested in purchasing/subscribing.  I fully understand many people would not be without it.

[Jud]

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.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, airdronian said:

The radio stations have been requested for years on the Audirvana forum, so that is a welcome addition.  The kernel streaming option will be interesting to check out, and I couldn't hear the name on the recording but there is also a second upsampler being added besides SOX, fwiw.

 

r8brain.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, jimdukey said:

"user of Audirvana's features"

 

Which features?

HQ Client lists all Files with Pics and Info, similar to Audirvana.

 

For someone who prefers listening to HQPlayer, you seem to spend a fair amount of time commenting about Audirvana. At this point, why would it matter to you any longer?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, infonut said:

I'm going to wait until someone can confirm that there is a "significant" improvement in SQ before I try the subscription.    I don't need a lot of features and Audirvana works better for me than Roon.  I quit using my Roon subscription as soon as I tried Audirvana.

 

Yesterday's presentation referred to some additional features but it wasn't clear to me if they were anything I would use.

 

That's what the free trial is for. Listening to it yourself for a month should hopefully tell you more than anyone else's written remarks about SQ.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Windows X said:

 

Not sure which one you compare to but Quboz and HRA cost more than $3.49 USD, not to mention value to listen to their entire hires streaming collection for whole month is more value for both music lovers and audiophiles.

 

Regards,

Keetakawee

 

I have and love Qobuz. My computer is in my office and my system is in my living room. Without Audirvana I would have to wait until Qobuz developed reliable UPnP/DLNA/OpenHome streaming from their app to listen to the subscription I am paying for, and that is without any consideration of sound quality.

 

So it is Audirvana that allows me to get value from my Qobuz subscription.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Daren F said:

 

That true. I just wish the Qobuz was a little innovative and would launch a Connect feature or fix their Chromecast implementation.

 

I'm sure they are "a little innovative," but resources and time dictate how much they can accomplish in a given time frame.

 

Bringing this back around to Audirvana, I would still use it even if Qobuz had these features, due to the sound quality. 🙂

[Jud]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

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

 

Yes, through Shairport that comes installed on the microRendu in my case.  But the sound quality isn't as good as Audirvana's IMHO.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

 

 

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

 

Opinions differ.  :-)

[Jud]

3 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

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). 

 

 

 

"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).

 

Oversampling is done in software players or the DAC chip. If that's not audible to you, the same is true of the built-in software players in Windows and the Mac, so really no reason for a 'bit-perfect' player.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I believe bit perfect players are the best option for certain DACs like the Berkeley Audio design Alpha series. No DSD support or USB support. limited to 192. 

 

Unless of course you think you can hear an audible difference between your favored player upsampling to 192 and the chip in the Berkeley doing it, in favor of the player, and (1) the player and the Berkeley supported 192 resolution at the relevant input, or (2) you had a digital/digital converter like the one available for the Berkeley.

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The Berkeley internally upsamples to I believe either 8fs or 16fs. There's no way to get around that. I think using one filter on the outside and a different filter on the inside is a bridge too far for me :~)

 

It does at first blush seem more complicated.  However, people seem to think the initial filtering makes the most difference, so who knows whether it would have a good/bad/any sonic impact? (Though you could well decide not to just to avoid whatever degree of hassle would be involved.)

 

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.

[Jud]

36 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

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

[Jud]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Jud]

3 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

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).

 

 

 

 

Do you need to do sample rate changes if you're not worried about being bit perfect?

 

WASAPI I think you might have to take up with Amir at ASR - I have the impression he headed the team responsible for it.

 

Interfering with album cover art and not supporting native DSD I completely agree are significant negatives.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

It's OK for you  to say that Roon has Customers that are "Not that wonderful according to a few recent posts here."   and that's not cynicism?

 

Chris are you vested in Audirvana?

 

You're deliberately mischaracterizing what Chris said. He said some customers felt the new version of Roon wasn't wonderful. He never criticized Roon customers, as your feeble attempt at propaganda would have it.

 

Don't you suppose that when you find yourself in a thread that doesn't have to do with your preferred software and find yourself having to lie in order to try to make a point, that it's time to give it a rest for a little while?

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Jud....I thought you were better than that....Propaganda???   Lies?????...Wow...Not even close!!!!!!!

 

Nope, I'm worse than that. For the first time in a long time, someone makes my ignore list.

[Jud]

While I would prefer paying for something once-and-done myself, unless there is a continuing stream of new buyers, sooner or later there's no money coming in. Some developers can in effect create a continuing charge in the form of purchasing new/upgraded versions, and if the cost is high enough, upgrades don't need to happen that often.

 

Damien chose to keep his price reasonably low, and since the market for high end player software isn't huge, to my thinking that meant money running out and no more Audirvana pretty quickly.  So the choices to keep the product available and supported were to go on some artificial upgrade cycle where we would all be debating whether the new version was worth the cost anyway, or subscription.

[Jud]

1 minute ago, arlese said:

The last thing I will say is I hope the developer is successful. But the reason I am personally bent out of shape is because I chose Audirvana over Roon because it was not a subscription - or a ridiculously high upfront cost that is too risky to make for reasons already cited.

 

I know you said it was the last thing you would say, but I'm interested in the following (not trying to persuade or challenge, but rather curious):

 

You have said both that the developer must charge a high enough one-time cost to stay in business, and also that you would not risk paying a ridiculously high upfront cost. I know from what you have said that $700 for Roon was too much.  I'm curious what a ballpark maximum upfront cost would be for you.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, Bones13 said:

 

I will probably upgrade to Studio if they let me have it installed in several locations, and listen in one at a time

 

I believe that is the plan.

[Jud]

29 minutes ago, CoolHand said:

I believe THIS is the plan.....🥴

 

Though as we know, there's truth in it. Guess we should never have paid for cable TV.