[Stevko]

does it support chromecast?

 

[tumpux]

No.

 

[Gorf]

I have to say that i really love it. The SQ is amazing. Beside of that i think that the Software has still a lot of Bugs that they need to fix urgent if they want to charge people for a subscription...

Yes agreed. I've download a trial yesterday after using Winamp for years. The sound quality is way better. However, the software is a little unstable & UI needs lots of work.

 

[theaudiologist1]

after seeing all the proprietary programs sell themsleves to become subscription services, I begun to see that Richard Stallman was right regarding freedom and ownership. I hate that we are heading into a "rent everything" direction, not just in technology.

 

[Gorf]

I've been using Audirvana Studio for a few days now on a 30 day trial. The sound quality through WASAPI on my WIndows 10 pc is really a relevation. It's as though I have upgraded my headphones. UI has a lot of work to do & there are some issues with the software writing metadata. However I'm sticking with it for now. Thanks for the heads-up about this.

 

[tumpux]

And the updated Audirvana remote app is already available.
They also extend the trial program until the end of July 2021.

 

[Slaphead]

I am fine with subscription business model. There’s nothing wrong with that.

To me Audirvana Studio is not at that level yet..
But maybe other people look at it differently and the Studio will still be around for the next 5 years, and it keeps getting better and reached the point that makes it worthwhile for me to subscribe.

Cool, but can I ask you what new content is delivered to provide value for money for the subscription, or is it just renting a software music player.

I remember buying my first CD player back in the late eighties, It cost £200. Would you think it's OK for me to attempt to buy a CD player now only to be told no you can't buy it but you can borrow it if you pay us £800 (approximately what it would be today) a year.

Eff off would be my response.

 

[eee1111]

Cool, but can I ask you what new content is delivered to provide value for money for the subscription, or is it just renting a software music player.

I remember buying my first CD player back in the late eighties, It cost £200. Would you think it's OK for me to attempt to buy a CD player now only to be told no you can't buy it but you can borrow it if you pay us £800 (approximately what it would be today) a year.

Eff off would be my response.

For what audirvana is trying to do

I’ll just keep standard non subscription audirvana on my laptop and use roon for my serious listening

not down with subscription

but I’m not gonna hop in with audirvana this early when roon is proven

 

[tumpux]

Cool, but can I ask you what new content is delivered to provide value for money for the subscription, or is it just renting a software music player.

I remember buying my first CD player back in the late eighties, It cost £200. Would you think it's OK for me to attempt to buy a CD player now only to be told no you can't buy it but you can borrow it if you pay us £800 (approximately what it would be today) a year.

Eff off would be my response.

Honestly at the moment I couldn’t think of a feature that the Audirvana could add so I would be willing to pay the subscription service fee that they charge.
The way I consume music post 2010 is already switched to streaming based services such as Spotify. I found that streaming locally stored music while has its own advantages, are too restricting and not offering advantages over playing records, CDs or tapes.

However, I also recognize the need for others that prefer to have a music management software to manage their own files.

Regarding your CD player example, I tend to see the subscription service like Audirvana Studio as having a player that continuously updated so I wouldn’t have to stuck with a player with PCM56 chip when a decade later I could have one with a PCM1704.
Unfortunately what Audirvana offers for their service at the moment is more like a player with an AKM something chip and a subpar power supply.

 

[tumpux]

Oh, and I dont think that Roon is much better over Audirvana Studio.
But again, it’s more about my personal preference.

 

[Slaphead]

Honestly at the moment I couldn’t think of a feature that the Audirvana could add so I would be willing to pay the subscription service fee that they charge.
The way I consume music post 2010 is already switched to streaming based services such as Spotify. I found that streaming locally stored music while has its own advantages, are too restricting and not offering advantages over playing records, CDs or tapes.

However, I also recognize the need for others that prefer to have a music management software to manage their own files.

Regarding your CD player example, I tend to see the subscription service like Audirvana Studio as having a player that continuously updated so I wouldn’t have to stuck with a player with PCM56 chip when a decade later I could have one with a PCM1704.
Unfortunately what Audirvana offers for their service at the moment is more like a player with an AKM something chip and a subpar power supply.

Having been banging around the world for over 50 years one thing I've experienced is that there are financial good times and there are financial bad times - I think most people have these.

Now the thing about subscriptions is that when you have the bad times they are the first things to be culled. Now I truly hope that it never happens to you, but could you imagine falling into one of these bad times, cancelling the subscriptions, and then finding that you have all of this wonderful equipment, but you can't even play your own music because the software player (yeah just the player - no content) you subscribe to will no longer work because you can't afford the payments

And having been through that is the reason why I absolutely reject the subscription model for such things. In the example I put forward I'd have still been able to enjoy my original CD player in the event I couldn't afford to upgrade.

 

[GlenAppleton]

I've been using the trial version for a few days now, and it's made my Qobuz streaming experience so much better. I know it's probably a low bar to compare the default Qobuz app (Win 10) to an application that's been popular for many years due to the sound quality, but it's absolutely a big step up. I can see why it's been very popular all these years and managed to keep a loyal customer base up to this point, but I do understand why some people would be upset when a company says "lifetime updates" and then switches the business model.

I'm probably going to get the year subscription @ $70 (USD) and see where it goes, hoping that they implement some good services similar to Roon Radio and better meta-data and search features as well. I don't have any local music other than a few thousand decent MP3 tracks that I keep on thumb drive for my car audio, so it's being used strictly for streaming Qobuz and then probably later for the uPnP / DLNA once I setup a network stream endpoint. If it doesn't get much better over the next year, I can always switch to Roon.

More info: The Qobuz player was taking about 8-10% CPU, and the Audirvana software is sitting at 1% or less CPU, so I can tell that it's very well optimized for the Windows 10 platform, which is a bonus. The ASIO driver seems to be the best sounding stream mode so far, but that might just be subconscious bias from what I've been reading about the different modes. I've tried the kernel stream mode, but I sometimes get noise between tracks with that method, so sticking with ASIO for now.

 

[Lolito]

I used the trial version, it has bugs. I dont dislike it, I like it, but it is fine for free, not to be paid. Paid I would do 1€ month, or buy the app, closed price with X years updates... Subscription model, ok if very cheap or for suitable products, not for my music app. iTunes already fine, or 3.5 much better. For subscription i woul dlook at roon maybe... but again, give me open source properly working apps, not a prison, and with payment, monthly, no thanks.

 

[tumpux]

I’ll give it another try at the 3rd anniversary of the Studio…





if it is still around.

 

[Gorf]

I've been using the trial version for a few days now, and it's made my Qobuz streaming experience so much better. I know it's probably a low bar to compare the default Qobuz app (Win 10) to an application that's been popular for many years due to the sound quality, but it's absolutely a big step up. I can see why it's been very popular all these years and managed to keep a loyal customer base up to this point, but I do understand why some people would be upset when a company says "lifetime updates" and then switches the business model.

I'm probably going to get the year subscription @ $70 (USD) and see where it goes, hoping that they implement some good services similar to Roon Radio and better meta-data and search features as well. I don't have any local music other than a few thousand decent MP3 tracks that I keep on thumb drive for my car audio, so it's being used strictly for streaming Qobuz and then probably later for the uPnP / DLNA once I setup a network stream endpoint. If it doesn't get much better over the next year, I can always switch to Roon.

More info: The Qobuz player was taking about 8-10% CPU, and the Audirvana software is sitting at 1% or less CPU, so I can tell that it's very well optimized for the Windows 10 platform, which is a bonus. The ASIO driver seems to be the best sounding stream mode so far, but that might just be subconscious bias from what I've been reading about the different modes. I've tried the kernel stream mode, but I sometimes get noise between tracks with that method, so sticking with ASIO for now.

I've turned my trial into a paid version. Very happy at the moment with WASAPI in my setup, but I will give ASIO a try too.

I'm using local FLAC files only.