Jump to content
IGNORED

Audirvana Studio


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Jud said:

 

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.

I didn't say or imply that Audirvana subscription costs as much as Roon.
I am merely saying that it would have been sensible to have lifetime option, especially for the existing license holders/users.

mevdinc.com (My autobiography)
Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives!

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

My take on Studio vs 3.5:
 

To be honest, I was very hesitant about the Studio version and was just waiting to see how things would develop.
I had cancelled my Qobuz subscription a couple months ago and have been waiting for Spotify hires streaming service.  I was disappointed with Audirvana Studio offering subscription only and  with no hope of Spotify connect etc.

But yesterday a great audiophile friend of mine called me about the comparison he’d made between the 3.5 and the Studio versions. He was just gobsmacked by the overwhelming differences and he just couldn’t believe that the Studio version sounded so much better! He has a great HiFi shop and is well known and respected. I had actually convinced him to try Audirvana 3.5 a few years ago.


My friend’s enthusiasm got me excited too and I just had to try it myself. So, I renewed my Qobuz subscription and started the Studio trial to make my own comparisons.
In short; I must say the Studio version sounds much better, it really does. Better sound stage, more detail and bigger bass too.
All the settings are identical, no upsampling, nothing. Both streaming and local playback sound better with the Studio.

I have no idea what Damien did but to me Studio sounds great. 😀

 

It looks like I will bite the bullet for Studio but first I need to see a remote app soon and a more stable version. And the new playlist manager, sorry but I don't like it at all; it just clatters the already very busy screen and it's not very easy to use. I use playlists a lot for choosing what to listen to and it was great on the left with the other stuff.

mevdinc.com (My autobiography)
Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives!

Link to comment
On 6/2/2021 at 1:30 AM, mevdinc said:

My take on Studio vs 3.5:
 

To be honest, I was very hesitant about the Studio version and was just waiting to see how things would develop.
I had cancelled my Qobuz subscription a couple months ago and have been waiting for Spotify hires streaming service.  I was disappointed with Audirvana Studio offering subscription only and  with no hope of Spotify connect etc.

But yesterday a great audiophile friend of mine called me about the comparison he’d made between the 3.5 and the Studio versions. He was just gobsmacked by the overwhelming differences and he just couldn’t believe that the Studio version sounded so much better! He has a great HiFi shop and is well known and respected. I had actually convinced him to try Audirvana 3.5 a few years ago.


My friend’s enthusiasm got me excited too and I just had to try it myself. So, I renewed my Qobuz subscription and started the Studio trial to make my own comparisons.
In short; I must say the Studio version sounds much better, it really does. Better sound stage, more detail and bigger bass too.
All the settings are identical, no upsampling, nothing. Both streaming and local playback sound better with the Studio.

I have no idea what Damien did but to me Studio sounds great. 😀

 

It looks like I will bite the bullet for Studio but first I need to see a remote app soon and a more stable version. And the new playlist manager, sorry but I don't like it at all; it just clatters the already very busy screen and it's not very easy to use. I use playlists a lot for choosing what to listen to and it was great on the left with the other stuff.


A quick update:

 

Audirvana always improved slightly somehow with each release or sounded different, but my friend's enthusiasm and my quick test results needed further confirmation.

 

So, I decided to run further tests to make sure that I was doing a proper apples to apples comparison.
And I discovered that there was a major discrepancy between the settings of 3.5 and Studio.

Because of my left ear problem, I was using AUGraphicEQU to reduce the volume of some of the frequencies by around 2-3 dB, which was missing on Studio version.
As a result, the effect I was getting was a slight volume boost on certain frequencies (mostly mid to low), hence my description of bigger bass/sound on Studio.
I will visit my friend and also double check his settings.
In effect, what I experienced was similar to the initial impression of the MQA format (+3 dB boost) that impresses people, which I find fatiguing after awhile. That's why I stopped using MQA a long time ago.

I wanted to share this as I wouldn't want to mislead people with false claims. To me, both 3.5 and Studio sound very similar.

mevdinc.com (My autobiography)
Recently sold my ATC EL 150 Actives!

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...