Jump to content
IGNORED

Audirvana Studio


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Competition is a good thing. It keeps all three of these companies innovating. 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad - literally just splurged for HQ player two weeks ago. Though unlikely to have added yet another subscription service to my life. Would assume that the new Audirvana - like the old - cannot link its audio output to HQ player within the same computer?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, all300b said:

Would assume that the new Audirvana - like the old - cannot link its audio output to HQ player within the same computer?

And why would you do that? Just out of curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 🙂

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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. 🙂

 

While just about every other streaming service has managed to figure it out Qobuz lags behind. If they don't have the resources in house, they should consider contracting it out.

 

I find that I get the best sound quality using the Chromecast built in to my Primare NP5 streamer. Cloud\streamer\DAC with no third party apps in between. It's also the most convenient for library management. Unfortunately, the Qobuz CCA implementation is so bad it's unusable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Has anyone here compared Qobuz to their own rips?   FWIW, I find Qobuz seems to boost the bottom end a little compared to my own rips....Anyone? 

I frequently use Qobuz to find new music and then purchase the disc in order to get better sound quality. I have found the difference to be subtle -  at the high end, tighter bottom and something a little more spacious in the sound stage. All subtle, but noticeable enough (on some recordings more than others) that I pay the extra money. (I also prefer the subtle sound improvement of foreign disc pressings - British, German and Japanese...)

MacMini Quad i7/Audirvana Plus 3.5/DigiOne Signature Player/Schiit Yggdrasil GS/Aragon Palladium 1 amplifiers/Stacked Energy 22 speakers (Reference Connoisseur on bottom & Pro 22 on top) set tweeter to tweeter/Kimber Monocle XL speaker wires/stereo Mordaunt Short 309 subwoofers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rruffin said:

I frequently use Qobuz to find new music and then purchase the disc in order to get better sound quality. I have found the difference to be subtle -  at the high end, tighter bottom and something a little more spacious in the sound stage. All subtle, but noticeable enough (on some recordings more than others) that I pay the extra money. (I also prefer the subtle sound improvement of foreign disc pressings - British, German and Japanese...)

I agree with you.   I use Qobuz mostly to find out if I would enjoy the purchase.   It seems That my rips exhibit similar qualities as you describe.  I don't quite understand where the Qobuz version plays from before you actually "add" it to your library.  Anyway, because I think I hear boosted bass from the Qobuz versions, it seems my rips are more accurate.   I would like to see Chris's "Bit for Bit" comparo so I could what he was writing about above.   His Bit for Bit identical infers that they have to sound the same, but I still would like to know where the file plays from.   I just had a thought...I wonder what actually happens when/if you terminate your Qobuz membership and all your "additions" vanish.   Hopefully your own duplicate versions would still be left intact...One difference for me is Qobuz is is usually FLAC and I rip/import in WAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything much here for people who don't stream.  My AV is used to play local files, mainly vinyl rips, I have no interest in streaming but like the ability of AV to use my Dirac plug in.  I assume 3.5 will just die eventually if not supported by a future OSX.  Great shame.

Audirvana Plus/Dirac Live - Weiss 202 - Lavardin IT-15 - Art Emotion Signatures.  DragonFly Red - Sennheiser HD600s & IE800s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SteveS1 said:

Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything much here for people who don't stream.

I agree that the Audirvana Studio experience is intended to merge the local library and streaming content into a single collection. That’s a huge benefit to streamers with local content, but less appealing to local-only or streaming-only users. 
 

It would be wise for Audirvana to consider offering local-only or streaming-only versions of Audirvana Studio at a discounted price. 
 

While the Facebook reveal described commitment to supporting version 3.5, I imagine that “support” will be limited to OS release compatibility for

the next 2-3 years. 

 

It’s difficult to continue to support 2 products, with a separate codebase, for the long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lucretius said:

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.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

mQa is dead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

 

 

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

 

Opinions differ.  :-)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical to EtherREGEN -> microRendu -> USPCB -> ISO Regen -> USPCB -> Pro-Ject Pre Box S2 DAC -> Spectral DMC-12 & DMA-150 -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lifetime license for Roon costs $700 bucks now, and if you add HQPlayer on top of that it's another $260. With Tax, you're at or over $1000 USD. Thats the price you pay for software if you don't want a subscription. Developers have to eat too, and I think these prices are lower than they could be.

 

$70 a year is an absolute bargain. It's $5.83 a month.

No electron left behind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? Lastly, several years ago there were claims by other Chord DAVE+Blu Mk II owners that using Roon+HQ Player with the upsampling options disabled improved the sound quality of Roon-- can anyone confirm the merits of those claims?  

 

Audirvana Studio may be in my future -if- Damien can maintain or further improve the current sound quality over v3.5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes 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? Lastly, several years ago there were claims by Chord DAVE+Blu Mk II owners that using Roon+HQ Player with the upsampling options disabled improved the sound quality of Roon-- can anyone confirm the merits of those claims?  

 

Audirvana Studio may be in my future -if- Damien can maintain or further improve the current sound quality over v3.5. 

 

I do not own a Chord DAVE or a Blu Mk II, but I do use HQPlayer with Roon, and I upsample, and I find that HQPlayer substantially increases the sound quality to the point I can't even listen to Roon by itself anymore.

No electron left behind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...