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. Maybe the extended period of evaluation is a sign that current Audirvana users dislike Studio edition and their convert rate is lower than expected. In real world the developer is paying for testing of own software - not the other way around. Does anyone have any experience comparing sound quality of Audirvana vs Roon or other players I use Audirvana to play purchased FLACs, ripped FLACs, and also Tidal HiFi from my Mac Mini with Fusion Drive connected via USB. I actually went to the trouble to compare them all before reaching this conclusion. Otherwise Audirvana would sound just like all the other (about half a dozen) bit-perfect players for OS X. 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. Seems like Audirvanas sound quality is considered to be high. As I mentioned, of course Audirvana is improving/sweetening the sound. 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. I dislike Roon including its subscription based model but thanks to Audirvana devs it may seem I will be forced to. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |