Audirvana Studio

[pl_svn]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

who pays a subscription for Roon

 

nope 2!

purchased Roon lifetime 3 days after starting the free trial. was 5 years ago so... ;)

[jos]

I still have double entries in the latest 3.5 version. I really hope they solve that too. 🙏

[DonaldM]

I guess we will have to get used (if we weren't already) to the subscription model: Apple Music, Qobuz, Lightroom/Photoshop, Netflix, internet provider, telephony provider, etc. etc.

But paying for an update every other year amounts to about the same kind of money. Software you 'own' is outdated in a few years, so you are forced to renew from time to time anyhow.

For me counts which program delivers first and foremost the best audio quality, is stable and user friendly. The last time we did a comparison Audirvana won hands down from an audio quality point of view. For me it is/was a very stable program the last years with a reasonable large music collection and the user interface is good enough.

So, until some better sounding software comes along I'll stay with Audirvana. 

[jimdukey]

Last time I made a similar comparison, HQ won.

I'm still miffed that Direct Mode got messed up on Mac.
I'm not up to the Hack provided by Run Home Slow.

[Whya Duck]

3 minutes ago, DonaldM said:

But paying for an update every other year amounts to about the same kind of money. Software you 'own' is outdated in a few years, so you are forced to renew from time to time anyhow.

The subscription model is reasonable for users whose primary player is Audirvana, but it does impact those who only occasionally use Audirvana. That group will be unlikely to continue as a subscription customer.

 

For occasional users, Audirvana won't be a price-competitive option for them. But HQPlayer is a hefty step up in price. And my understanding is that other lower cost competing apps don't have the same feature set as Audirvana 3.5.

 

From my perspective, I'm fine with paying a higher yearly cost for Audirvana in return for a product with more features. However, that's not true for all current Audirvana 3.5 users. In the end… Audirvana Studio is morphing into a more powerful app, at the expense of losing some current users.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, pl_svn said:

 

nope 2!

purchased Roon lifetime 3 days after starting the free trial. was 5 years ago so... ;)

 

You do realize that if you paid for Audirvana as a subscription on the day you "purchased" Roon, you still wouldn't even be close to spending as much on Audirvana as you have on Roon right?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think it would be helpful for people to compare Apples to Apples on this one. Apps such as HQPlayer and Roon are vastly different from Audirvana Studio in features. If someone is a user of Audirvana's features, it's a tough one to switch to HQP. In addition, if you stream to a DLNA renderer, then HQP and Roon aren't even in the conversation. 

 

I have no issue with people who don't like the subscription model. To each their own. But we should keep the comparisons equal when possible. 

[mevdinc]

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.

[Windows X]

I think the major issue in this change is about pricing and value added offer. It wouldn't receive this much backlash if Audirvana is a nice  new product no one buys before. The problem is they have a lot of clients purchasing Audirvana license that's supposed to work for lifetime and some spent $69.95 USD to use Audirvana for several years.

 

Now their new Studio version is out offering new services and better user experience. However, they want to charge you the same price but you can use Audirvana for a year instead. A few clients doesn't like this idea of moving to subscription to get better user experience with more streaming services supported and other things they added on.

 

If they offer $3.49 monthly purchase or $34.95 annual purchase, that'd be more reasonable to accept subscription model when they pay less to use for one year rather than the same price from lifetime to one year. I don't hate subscription model to use services but current pricing is quite a high hurdle for most Audirvana clients to migrate from 3.5 to Studio.

 

Regards,

Keetakawee

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, jos said:

a price just below the 50/5 euro would be a far better starting point

 

 

9 minutes ago, Windows X said:

If they offer $3.49 monthly purchase or $34.95 annual purchase, that'd be more reasonable

 

 

At this rate, software will be more devalued than streaming music :~)

[jimdukey]

"user of Audirvana's features"

 

Which features?

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

[Windows X]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

 

At this rate, software will be more devalued than streaming music :~)

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, jimdukey said:

"user of Audirvana's features"

 

Which features?

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

 

How about streaming from Tidal, Qobuz, or HiRes Audio?

[infonut]

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.

[jimdukey]

I'm not a Streamer, just Files I own.

I just read a Project CD Player review that stated the CDs sound better on it than Streaming Services, even Hi-Res.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, jimdukey said:

I just read a Project CD Player review that stated the CDs sound better on it than Streaming Services, even Hi-Res.

 

As Abraham Lincoln said, "I saw it on the internet, it must be true." 

 

All joking aside, if you're happy, that's all that matters. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Perhaps I misread this, but it seems to me that a monthly subscription can be purchased. This is a great thing for people who want to dip their toes in for longer than a trial period. 

[jos]

Perhaps I will keep version 3.5 for years to come, because it’s free of charge, I think. Is that possible? And perhaps they should make a lite version, for a cheaper price.

[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

[fheller]

Nobody can convince anybody here to take a different position.

Best way is to take the offer Audirvana made: Free trial until end of July 2021.

Then we see if Audirvana Studio is worth $70 ($50 first year). This is what I do.

[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.

[DuckToller]

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

Peter Veth is in the waiting for authenticating the MQA capabilities ... 🤣

[Daren F]

I understand the need for the subscription model but it still turns me off.

 

IMO, a streaming service like Qobuz should offer some of the basic features that the third party (Audirvana or Roon) apps do in its native desktop software and mobile apps. The ability to use a control point, volume leveling and the ability to sort (focus) and create smart playlist based on the favorites in your library would be a good start. Imagine Qobuz and Roon/Audirvana merged to form one service. One subscription.

 

I'll trial Audirvana Studio and if it does what I need for less than Roon I'll subscribe but, ultimately I want to eliminate these third party apps all together.

 

Keeping my fingers crossed for Spotify's lossless tier.