[lawsonian]

It's sad to see their new Studio software which is trying to rip people off with expensive yearly subscription fee that is equal to the lifetime price of the predecessor.

I'm still using the old Audirvana Plus but won't count on their software support for much longer.

Any good paid and free alternatives out there?

 

[starence]

I like Roon better, but it's even more expensive.

 

[Roseval]

Have a look at https://www.foobar2000.org/mac

 

[shwnwllms]

Roon is by far the best alternative out there. Their discovery features are worth every penny of the subscription price. Any edge Audirvana might have had on them in the SQ department is minimal at best now given their recent updates. I switched to Roon when Audirvana Studio was announced, I just wish I would have done it sooner.

 

[theaudiologist1]

Have a look at https://www.foobar2000.org/mac

foobar mac is garbage. no features at all

 

[alekc]

Audirvana Studio evaluation has been extended, but I am not going to buy after that - and I am speaking as original Audirvana fan, what a great software it was. I dislike Roon including its subscription based model but thanks to Audirvana devs it may seem I will be forced to. It is not just about the price of Studio but in fact the initial release has been full of bugs and lacks of features original Audirvana offered long time ago. While I was the one who voted for a better seek bar in wave form for example it is just not enough to justify a model in which I am paying monthly fee for beta quality software lacking some basic streaming features. In real world the developer is paying for testing of own software - not the other way around.

Maybe the extended period of evaluation is a sign that current Audirvana users dislike Studio edition and their convert rate is lower than expected. If so there maybe a slight chance of devs finally realizing that the whole Studio is a catastrophic move in very wrong direction and return to original Audirvana model.

 

[shwnwllms]

Audirvana Studio evaluation has been extended, but I am not going to buy after that - and I am speaking as original Audirvana fan, what a great software it was. I dislike Roon including its subscription based model but thanks to Audirvana devs it may seem I will be forced to. It is not just about the price of Studio but in fact the initial release has been full of bugs and lacks of features original Audirvana offered long time ago. While I was the one who voted for a better seek bar in wave form for example it is just not enough to justify a model in which I am paying monthly fee for beta quality software lacking some basic streaming features. In real world the developer is paying for testing of own software - not the other way around.

Maybe the extended period of evaluation is a sign that current Audirvana users dislike Studio edition and their convert rate is lower than expected. If so there maybe a slight chance of devs finally realizing that the whole Studio is a catastrophic move in very wrong direction and return to original Audirvana model.

I was an Audirvana+, then Audirvana user for awhile, had no interest in Roon as Audirvana met my needs. At the time I didn't see the benefit of Roon's subscription based model, but Audirvana Studio was the last draw for me (in what was an already underdeveloped buggy app to begin with). I only wish I had made the jump sooner, I'm a true believer now (and even considering the lifetime billing especially after the last update). Its feature rich and growing, the curation and discovery aspects are light years ahead of what Audirvana or anyone else will be able to offer in the space.

 

[Lolito]

Audirvana Studio evaluation has been extended, but I am not going to buy after that - and I am speaking as original Audirvana fan, what a great software it was. I dislike Roon including its subscription based model but thanks to Audirvana devs it may seem I will be forced to. It is not just about the price of Studio but in fact the initial release has been full of bugs and lacks of features original Audirvana offered long time ago. While I was the one who voted for a better seek bar in wave form for example it is just not enough to justify a model in which I am paying monthly fee for beta quality software lacking some basic streaming features. In real world the developer is paying for testing of own software - not the other way around.

Maybe the extended period of evaluation is a sign that current Audirvana users dislike Studio edition and their convert rate is lower than expected. If so there maybe a slight chance of devs finally realizing that the whole Studio is a catastrophic move in very wrong direction and return to original Audirvana model.

exactly, I used the old audirvana, really happy with it, finally a substitute for itunes... and that business model, come on mates. subscription for an audio media player, What is this kinda joke? I dont pay for the music, i gotta rent an audio player.

#bringbackwinamp

 

[theaudiologist1]

exactly, I used the old audirvana, really happy with it, finally a substitute for itunes... and that business model, come on mates. subscription for an audio media player, What is this kinda joke? I dont pay for the music, i gotta rent an audio player.

#bringbackwinamp

you will own nothing and you WILL be happy!

 

[Lolito]

i will own the hardware and the time spent on concerts, i am already happy

 

[fablestruck]

Are there any other pc audioplayers streaming Tidal?

 

[Deleeh]

I bought 3.5 last December.
And that is enough.
And I liked the possibility that you buy something once and it's yours.

But when the Audirvana subscription came along, I found it even more regrettable that they no longer develop 3.5.

They scared me away from trying Studio at all, if anything then Roon.
It's a pity that neither of them offers the possibility to use it on a tablet or smartphone.
For that reason alone, it doesn't justify the additional monthly costs for me.
A slim version would be nice, especially if you could use the dac dongels and mobile headphone amplifiers on the go.
Since manufacturers offer almost nothing in the way of apps.
And the app market in general has a gap in this respect - a sensible player that can also stream.

Then I would also consider spending $10.
But for someone who listens to music occasionally, it's a cheeky thing to pay $10.
Depending on the subscription model, it's 20-30$, which is a bit much per year.

 

[alekc]

@Deleeh I think that Audirvana realised that they did something wrong yet they are not up to fixing it properly, instead they play stupid startup strategy called "experimenting". The problem is this is not a startup and they are nowhere near becoming a unicorn so this strategy is wrong from day 0. So far I've got an email from Audirvana with special offer for Studio for 1st year for 3.5 owners. Considering how buggy and functionality lacking the software has been so far I am denying paying for it. I've tried switching to Roon but I still hate its UI, I need so much time to do simple things (like show only local library instead of mixed tracks from my hdd and streaming services) and it has constant problems playing DSD files. I have never encounter any such problems with Audirvana 3.5.

 

[alekc]

After living with Lumin U1 Mini for few months I found zero need for Audirvana in my desktop setups. Testing Mojo 2 with Poly and there is a chance it will also fit my use case so I will not be installing any new audio playback software on my PC. Honestly speaking Lumin finally gave me the pure enjoyment of the music. I also think that last Audirvana classic updates for Windows broke it in one way or another. I've tried testing Studio again but Lumin made stop considering paying for so buggy software. Will I miss classic Audirvana? For sure, since for me it was best PC audio player available back at the time, but you have to move on.

I wonder how others manage in their quest for audio playback software?

 

[fablestruck]

After living with Lumin U1 Mini for few months I found zero need for Audirvana in my desktop setups. Testing Mojo 2 with Poly and there is a chance it will also fit my use case so I will not be installing any new audio playback software on my PC. Honestly speaking Lumin finally gave me the pure enjoyment of the music. I also think that last Audirvana classic updates for Windows broke it in one way or another. I've tried testing Studio again but Lumin made stop considering paying for so buggy software. Will I miss classic Audirvana? For sure, since for me it was best PC audio player available back at the time, but you have to move on.

I wonder how others manage in their quest for audio playback software?

Cost of Lumin U1 mini?