Audirvana Studio

[Whya Duck]

20 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said:

Subscribing is paying for something you don’t own, i don’t like that either.

 

I want, i pay, i own, i do what i want. When OS doesn’t work anymore you revert back and stay there with what you bought.

 

this update has to be massive, all bugs before solved + some improvements in sound and in look and possibilities to makes what we like in database vision…and not messing with all that was working in v3.5

Good software development requires continuous revenue, from both new user purchases and existing customer upgrades. As others have stated, purchased software has a limited lifespan of usefulness. If people posting to this thread want Audirvana to succeed, they’re silly to not want to pay for new features and enhancements. 
 

That license you “own” when you purchase software is worthless without the continued support of a developer to enhance and maintain the app thru future OS releases. Think of how many mobile apps you’ve purchased that no longer run on your current phone.  What value is there in “owning” those abandoned apps?
 

Every user who finds value in Audirvana wants the product to be maintained. And that’ll only happen by paying Damien every month, year, or every couple years.

 

Both Roon and HQP are apps that do different things at different price points… but I’ve found that Audirvana (currently) is a valuable product for me. I’d gladly purchase an upgrade to version 4.0 or pay a subscription. 
 

I require a music app for local and streaming music; it’s just as necessary as my DAC, amp, and headphones. If another product fits my needs better than Audirvana, then I’ll move to that. But It’s silly to think a one-time purchase now will continue to be of value for me for the next 3, 5, or 8 years. That’s why I’m looking forward to supporting the Audirvana development. 

[lucretius]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No, that’s the purchase model. You pay for the whole thing.
 

Subscribe until you no longer want the app. This way you never pay for the app if you aren’t using it. 

 

It's always a trade off -- pay up front but risk that you may let the app may fall by the wayside (normally, if you get a couple of years out of it, your ok) OR pay a subscription fee which invariably costs you more money in the long run but gives you the option to stop paying when you want (this is good when your not sure you can get a couple of years out of it, so you minimize your risk but you pay extra for the privilege.)   

 

For the pay up front model, the way the developer makes money is to introduce major upgrades*.  Current users can decide whether or not to upgrade.

 

*When the developer doesn't even introduce needed minor fixes/upgrades, it's not likely he will retain his entire customer base. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I think people should also double check the items they believe they own because in many cases they’ve only purchased the right to use it. Anyone remember the cases involving iTunes purchased music libraries dead persons’ wills?

 

It may seem like we own things because we have more control of them, but we often shouldn’t mistake this control for ownership. 

Interesting also that nobody has commented on JRiver’s pricing model. Those who want continued updates need to pay every year, thus it’s a back door subscription model. At least the old versions still work for those who don’t pay, but I’m willing to bet there’s a significant cost of those users posting in the JRiver forum seeking support. 

[lucretius]

13 minutes ago, Whya Duck said:

That license you “own” when you purchase software is worthless without the continued support of a developer to enhance and maintain the app thru future OS releases.

 

I am still using Photoshop CS6 and I haven't paid a dime since I first purchased it (or rather the license).

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

It's always a trade off -- pay up front but risk that you may let the app may fall by the wayside (normally, if you get a couple of years out of it, your ok) OR pay a subscription fee which invariably costs you more money in the long run but gives you the option to stop paying when you want (this is good when your not sure you can get a couple of years out of it, so you minimize your risk but you pay extra for the privilege.)   

 

For the pay up front model, the way the developer makes money is to introduce major upgrades*.  Current users can decide whether or not to upgrade.

 

*When the developer doesn't even introduce needed minor fixes/upgrades, it's not likely he will retain his entire customer base. 

Agree, there are always trade offs. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, lucretius said:

 

I am still using Photoshop CS6 and I haven't paid a dime since I first purchased it.

Ah, a software developer’s worst nightmare 🤣

[RunHomeSlow]

I still have my jriver 25, nothing new in now version for me, still working in Big Sur.

 

i don’t stream, i don’t listen to radio, i don’t upsample, i have all my music. I tags my music like i want, i just want to hear it bitperfect.

 

i beta test audirvana studio…

coming soon 😀

i wish you all to have what you need…

 

Music is the best - Frank Zappa

[lucretius]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting also that nobody has commented on JRiver’s pricing model. Those who want continued updates need to pay every year, thus it’s a back door subscription model. At least the old versions still work for those who don’t pay, but I’m willing to bet there’s a significant cost of those users posting in the JRiver forum seeking support. 

 

JRIver Media Center is a "mature" piece of software.  You can skip a few upgrades without significant downfall.  Nonetheless, I normally get the latest upgrade at the special pre-order price.  E.g the pre-order upgrade price for MC28 is $19.98 for one OS or $27.98 for all three OS's (Windows, MacOS, Linux).  You cannot fault JRiver prices.

[lucretius]

39 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I am still using Photoshop CS6 and I haven't paid a dime since I first purchased it (or rather the license).

 

37 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Ah, a software developer’s worst nightmare 🤣

 

The sad part is that it took me almost as many years to learn how to use it.  🙂

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

JRIver Media Center is a "mature" piece of software.  You can skip a few upgrades without significant downfall.  Nonetheless, I normally get the latest upgrade at the special pre-order price.  E.g the pre-order upgrade price for MC28 is $19.98 for one OS or $27.98 for all three OS's (Windows, MacOS, Linux).  You cannot fault JRiver prices.

 

Except that JRiver is on major version 28, while Audirvana is on major version 3 (after 11 years).  HQP is on major version 4, costing in the mid200s for a license. And Roon we've talked about.

 

In terms of cost over time, you can see the levels that developers consider sufficient, and Audirvana has just begun to get to the  lower range of those levels now with version 4.

 

 

[Mayfair]

5 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

JRIver Media Center is a "mature" piece of software.  You can skip a few upgrades without significant downfall.  Nonetheless, I normally get the latest upgrade at the special pre-order price.  E.g the pre-order upgrade price for MC28 is $19.98 for one OS or $27.98 for all three OS's (Windows, MacOS, Linux).  You cannot fault JRiver prices.

I agree.  I’ve been using JRiver for nearly 10 years.  It find it unrivalled for its powerful file management and tagging features, the WDM audio driver  and its ability to stream your music library anywhere, including to its excellent iOS app JRemote. I don’t mind that it doesn’t integrate streaming service libraries such as Qobuz or Tidal, or decoding MQA and don’t mind paying the associated costs, either.  $20 bucks a year ain’t free, but it ain’t a lot either, I also get the annual upgraded version. and as @lucretius says, if you don’t want to upgrade, you have a mature piece of software. The software won’t stop working for lack of an annual payment or not being connected to the Internet. 
 

[lucretius]

46 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Except that JRiver is on major version 28, while Audirvana is on major version 3 (after 11 years).  HQP is on major version 4, costing in the mid200s for a license. And Roon we've talked about.

 

In terms of cost over time, you can see the levels that developers consider sufficient, and Audirvana has just begun to get to the  lower range of those levels now with version 4.

 

 

 

In the case of Audirvana, going from 3 to 3.5 was a major upgrade and cost $84.42 CAD and you still had to pay extra for the iOS app (no Android app) at least before the 3.5 upgrade -- and in my view did not offer any significant enhancements.  Further, for Windows, there wasn't anywhere near 11 years from first issue (maybe 4.5 months beyond 2 years).

 

Putting the above aside, I believe Audirvana is a better product on MacOS -- On the Windows version, they haven't even corrected for keyboard control yet.  Similarly, JRiver Media Center is a better (more robust) product on Windows than it is MacOS.  So choice of OS may influence one's decision.

 

[bbosler]

On 5/10/2021 at 1:42 PM, Saffuria said:

On 5/10/2021 at 1:36 PM, 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.

 

HQPlayer does things that I don't believe Audivana can. Upsampling with a wide choice of filters and bit depths, which is why people buy it. If you don't want that capability then agreed, why use it. 

 

completely agree about not valuing software. Went out to dinner tonight and spent $75 + an ice cream on the way home and the cost of driving there and back....   buy a few records or CDs and you are out that much, it costs $50 to fill your car with gas, yet people bitch endlessly about spending $70 a year  for the use of something they use very day. I don't get it.

[bbosler]

6 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

I have my 2012 MAC Mini i7 16GB RAM, dedicated to Roon for my RoonServer, but then I installed a 1TB SSD and another one for back up all in the same box!   It works flawlessly!    

 

it works at the moment. You can't go beyond Catalina which obviously does what you want. The 2011 models are stuck at the OS before that. I have a 2009 Macbook which is basically worthless, at least to me, as it won't run the software I want. You aren't far behind. Apple is moving all machines to a new processor which is currently about 2.5X faster than your machine and this is just the first version. . As software is developed for this new chip and hardware advances you will eventually be forced to choose whether or not you want to take advantage of the advancements or remain behind.  Enjoy it while you can.

[ChipotleCoyote]

1 hour ago, bbosler said:

People bitch endlessly about spending $70 a year  for the use of something they use very day. I don't get it.

 

In general, I'm in the "subscriptions are probably a good thing" camp, but kind of reluctantly. I think it depends on (a) how much you really do use it, and (b) how much you paid (or believe you paid) for the application in its pre-subscription days vs. the apparent cost if you move to the subscription model. 

 

For my part, I realized I'm more of a "semi-audiophile," as my incredibly low post count vs. registration date here probably suggests.  (There's other reasons I ended up not really getting into this community, but that's neither here nor there.) I was a Roon subscriber for a few years, but realized I just wasn't getting $120/year out of it. Audirvana's lack of a subscription model was a point in its favor for me. I'll give Audirvana Studio a look, to be sure, and $70/year isn't a breathtakingly high price. But it is enough to give a casual user some pause.

[Musicophile]

What still puzzles me is that many audiophiles will happily spend the equivalent of 5 years of Audirvana subscription or more on a simple power chord. I still think I'll get more value out of the former than out of the latter.

 

I realize that software I use comes at a cost of ownership one way or another. I typically choose whatever is cheaper for me. 

 

I've been thinking about getting a nice hardware streamer at some point (which will probably end up costing 50-70 years of Audirvana Studio subscription, so all is relative).

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, Musicophile said:

What still puzzles me is that many audiophiles will happily spend the equivalent of 5 years of Audirvana subscription or more on a simple power chord. I still think I'll get more value out of the former than out of the latter.

 

I realize that software I use comes at a cost of ownership one way or another. I typically choose whatever is cheaper for me. 

 

I've been thinking about getting a nice hardware streamer at some point (which will probably end up costing 50-70 years of Audirvana Studio subscription, so all is relative).

I have roughly 20,000 albums in my library. If I spent $10 per album, that’s $200,000. I can’t imagine complaining about spending $70 per year to manage, view, and play this library. 

[Jud]

6 hours ago, bbosler said:

 

it works at the moment. You can't go beyond Catalina which obviously does what you want. The 2011 models are stuck at the OS before that. I have a 2009 Macbook which is basically worthless, at least to me, as it won't run the software I want. You aren't far behind. Apple is moving all machines to a new processor which is currently about 2.5X faster than your machine and this is just the first version. . As software is developed for this new chip and hardware advances you will eventually be forced to choose whether or not you want to take advantage of the advancements or remain behind.  Enjoy it while you can.

 

My mid-2009 MacBook runs Catalina: http://dosdude1.com/catalina/

 

Of course you want to be careful, take a backup, and it won't run Audirvana fast (have to wait for upsampled file to load into memory), but it will run.

 

This is if you feel like bothering.

[Jud]

8 hours ago, bbosler said:

 

HQPlayer does things that I don't believe Audivana can. Upsampling with a wide choice of filters and bit depths, which is why people buy it. If you don't want that capability then agreed, why use it. 

 

completely agree about not valuing software. Went out to dinner tonight and spent $75 + an ice cream on the way home and the cost of driving there and back....   buy a few records or CDs and you are out that much, it costs $50 to fill your car with gas, yet people bitch endlessly about spending $70 a year  for the use of something they use very day. I don't get it.

 

Audirvana has more limited choice of oversamplers (2) and modulators (in Audirvana the choice is more like parameters for a modulator, though some of HQP's choices are like that too). These reflect different choices by the developers, "set it and forget it" for Audirvana vs. "choose oversampler and modulator per recording" for HQP.

 

I tend to leave things alone once set, but I have HQP because of something @lucretius mentioned, which is that OS may affect player choice. I use HQP on my Linux distros.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I just ordered three CDs from the Three Blind Mice record label. Total cost with shipping was $72.62. A skosh more than a one year subscription to Audirvana. I know which purchase is harder to support, maintain, and keep updated from a manufacturer's point of view :~)

 

[jimdukey]

Hosokawa?

Is he the Modern Japanese Composer?

I have a few of his CDS, which I like a lot.

But maybe it's a common name...

[pl_svn]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just ordered three CDs from the Three Blind Mice record label. Total cost with shipping was $72.62. A skosh more than a one year subscription to Audirvana. I know which purchase is harder to support, maintain, and keep updated from a manufacturer's point of view :~)

 

... and completely ignore how many people, venues, equipments and time are necessary to produce those CDs 🙄

[Marco Klobas]

I get that many are upset by the subscription trend going on in our era.

 

Because of the lost ownership and the continuous flow of money required. I currently use you a mixture of subscriptions and regular purchases.

 

You have to keep track of your expenses, even more if compared with the traditional buy-own model. It's easy to loose money without a proper accounting.

 

It's no wonder that many services are turning into subscriptions: it's easier for services to switch to this model.

 

Subscriptions usually imply that a constant refreshing/improvement is guaranteed. If I subscribe to a newspaper I expect a flow of updated informations. That was a century ago and still is today. The same goes (or at least should be) for software, music/video streaming services, mobile data plans etc.

 

For material things, it's a little bit more complicated. Both, for the consumer and for the merchant, because the "rented" value is gradually lost with time.

 

Still, some forsee a future where everything will be somehow on subscription basis: cars, bikes, cloths, food, water, utility services, medical assistance, houses, furniture... Nobody will own stuff, except a few big companies who will employ people who, in return for their work, will have the right to subscribe to the same services/stuff they contribute to offer/produce.

 

For some of us this means a scary, almost dystopian society.

 

Speaking of audio streaming and potentially dystopian business: I see it as a tool to discover new music from a gigantic catalogue. If I really like a song/album I still buy it (as file in my case) and own it.

 

Because I want to support the artist. If music will end as subsciption model only, then it's very likely the worldwide music panorama as we know today will disappear. The artists' income from streaming is insanely low. Even for the big names. It's impossibile to sustain.

 

Yes, I know, concerts and other collateral activities represent the main revenue today for music artists. Still, a label gets on average $0,001 for every song listened. And that is a gross amount. Which, subsequently, has to be distributed to all the performers and technicians involved in the project.

 

How the hell is one supposed to make a living with these figures?

 

A provocative question: would you pay, let's say, $250 a month to "subscribe" to a hi-end system composed by a streamer-DAC/pre amp/power amp/speaker of your choice, valued ~$7,000 each piece, without owning it?

 

Cables not included – you know, cables are a sort of dogma ... or maybe not ... would you subscribe to fancy, jewelry-like, boa constrictor-thick cables? 😀

 

Back to the previous question: in ~10 years you'd have paid $30,000, which is more less the same amount if you had bought it instead.

 

The answer is probably not, because its value would drop continuously, year after year – regardless the maintained sonic performances – yet, you'd pay the exact amount each passing month. Unless the subscriber would have the right to update the gear from time to time, when a new, hopefully better piece will be available...

 

Besides, whoever would run such a hypothetical business, what would he/she do with the gear when a subscription is over. Sell it as second hand stuff? Reoffer again as a subscription applying a discount? Would such a business be feasible and sustainable?

 

Hi-Fi/Hi-End/Audiophilia – or whatever you call it – it's not only a way to enjoy the art of music and to own audio gear. It's a journey.

 

Researching the gear, trying, matching, updating from time to time, desiring, making purchase mistakes, waiting, learning, having different experiences, exchanging opinions and so on.

 

Basically evolving, growing and developing an understanding of music and sound reproduction.

 

Having everything immediately is less interesting. The exact opposite is unfair too: owning an excellent audio system only when you're old, half deaf with only a few years left to enjoy the system is somehow sad.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[Martini]

Will Studio incorporate an EQ or do we need to use a host program? This is for Mac. I'm searching for programs now.

 

While I'm not crazy about a subscription, I understand the need to have continuing revenue stream, especially in a niche market like hi-end audio. $70 is not too much for my music and I already have my music sorted the way I like on Audirvana. However, I do feel like I'm getting nickel & dimed to death with everyone going that route. I could use MS Office on my Mac and Acrobat, but I'm not going to do the subscription thing for as much as I'd use it. Pages/Numbers and PDFpro usually will meet my needs. I'm trying to figure out how to drop DirecTV and still get my auto racing programs without a bunch of other subscriptions adding up Directs costs.... Feels like it never ends.

[The Computer Audiophile]

48 minutes ago, pl_svn said:

 

... and completely ignore how many people, venues, equipments and time are necessary to produce those CDs 🙄

 

If you really think they are amortizing the cost over 50 years or that the albums haven't been paid off for 40 years, then OK. However, using your logic, once the cost of production is paid for, then the albums should be sold at cost plus some small percentage for the label?