![]() ![]() Whether the sound quality alone will convince enthusiasts to subscribe to Audirvana Studio is a moot point. Some Audirvana 3.5 users have also complained that the Studio version will feature monthly subscriptions instead of a one-time purchase. The metadata can get mixed up and the catalogue is definitely not as extensive as Spotify.Īlso, the current version is kind of buggy and unstable. It is not user friendly, not intuitive and is inconvenient. I also hear more details and ambience in the songs on Audirvana Studio along with much better separation of instruments and voices.īut…there’s always a but, the User Interface of Audirvana Studio sucks. It does not have the brightness that Roon has and acoustic instruments like guitar and piano sound excellent with Audirvana Studio. Its bass is tighter and deeper, the mid is open and natural and the treble is transparent and extended. In terms of sound quality, Audirvana Studio is the winner. I listened to Leonard Cohen’s Ten New Songs and Raising Sand by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss. Launch the two, sync with Tidal (since I subscribe to it), select the same albums and listen to them with Roon and Audirvana Studio on a system comprising iFi iSilencer+, Shunyata Sigma USB cable, iFi iPurifier3, iFi ZEN DAC V2 and a pair of Audio Technica ATH M-50x studio monitor headphones. Since I have downloaded Roon and Audirvana Studio in my laptop, it is simple to compare the two apps. The question every music streaming enthusiast is asking is: How does it compare with Roon? It also offers more than 65,000 internet radio stations updated weekly, more than 55,000 podcasts to listen to, on any subjects and from everywhere, a search by country, language, genre, audio stream quality, popularity function and the addition of new radio stations of your choice if they are not listed in the catalogue. While the talk in the music streaming segment is all about Roon these days, Audirvana is trying to grab its share of the pie with its latest iteration,Īudirvana Studio offers integration with Tidal, Qobuz and High Res Audio and “more to come”. ![]() A two-tiers subscription model, where you can pay more if you need web-based services, but you can also pay less, if you don’t need them.Audirvana has recently launched Audirvana Studio to replace its Version 3.5. A wishlist website where customers who support the business can submit requests, vote for them, see the upcoming new features ahead of time. A decent permanent license software that works. I am sorry to say that for me to be willing to commit to a subscription-based model, the bar should be raised higher: no way to parse all metadata, only the main ones. It plays only the selected track and then it stops, I can hardly believe it works this way. Poor display of metadata, with inline scrolling and poor usage of screen estate. no way to jump backward/fwd in playback using arrow keys, which is the minimum I’d expect from a music player. Search by name is broken, you select one album in the search results, and it still takes you to a list that includes all albums, so you have to choose again. Those like me who supported Audirvana+ over the years are now left with two choices: pay a high monthly fee for a service they don’t need, or keep using Audirvana+, aware of the fact that it’s not going to get any support and improve over time. A large portion of the UI in Audirvana studio is dedicated to streaming services that I am not interested in (considering the poor quality of masters you are going to get on those services), but you still have to deal with a UI and monthly-based subscription model that forces you into the online steaming model. Audirvana founder Damien may have done a fantastic job at developing the best music player on the market, but sadly, the software is plagued by usability issues and generally speaking, a mediocre user experience. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |