I think you missed @Rugby’s point. Running Windows headless means there is no monitor attached. It is accessed remotely using remote desktop. In contrast, a Linux server is usually command-line and accessed via ssh.
Ok I understand. This is a regular Windows not connected to the keyboard and monitor.
This is not what I wanted and that is why I used another option.
Where is this junk meme coming from, that modern operating systems are somehow “noisy”?
MacOS, Windows, Linux – none of them are architecturally particularly different from the others. They all run lots of processes, they all are optimized to the hilt, and they all have roots in the 1980’s, or even earlier. This idea that one or the other is somehow “quieter”, or “optimized for audio”, is a myth. Most of the differences are about how you manage them.
Early (and I’m talking 50 years ago) computers may have been electrically noisy, even as late as when Michael Dell was assembling PCs by hand in his UT dorm room (1984), but that’s another long-solved problem. In any case, the operating system was never the problem. Is this another “fact” some “audio God” who’s actually a marketing shill for a boutique audio company put out?
3 Likes
This phrase is only figurative and I understand what is meant. If the same sound card is installed, no system will sound better or worse, because each system now understands how to get the best out of it. Plus snake oil for all those who are not yet satisfied.
1 Like
I have been intrigued with Linux, but never got to dive in.
Back in 2014 I switched from Windows XP to Windows Server 2012 with Audio Optimizer and there was a clear improvement in sound. The Optimizer turns off a number of unnecessary processes and WinServer allows that. People call it noise. Not sure what it was, but the improvement in sound was there.
This is now the headless Roon client running Bridge. In 2020 I upgraded to WinServer 2019 and still running Optimizer.
Should I expect differences in sound from turning this to a Linux machine or are there other benefits to be expected?
If your DAC is connected directly to the computer, and it does a proper job filtering noise, there should be no difference between any OS including those that claim to be for audiophiles.
The best is more likely using Bridge on a small fanless computer, i.e., Raspberry Pi, dedicated to doing that one task.
Yeap. That must be it: it’s my DAC doing a poor job.
My highly optimized pc without moving parts, highly optimized network, usb card, etc and still optimizing Win Server makes an impact in sound. Must be a poor DAC.
Thank you!
It’s not just about improving sound quality by using an optimized audio OS.
There are at least two other aspects:
- Economy and optimization of available resources. If I have a dedicated Roon Core server, then I want Roon Core to benefit from as many resources as possible (and not to consume resources with unnecessary system services for such a server).
- If the system is fanless, it helps to reduce the temperature.
Yet the software you mentioned runs more services than a server. For one, it runs a desktop plus unnecessary widgets and tweaks. Moreover, it’s built on Linux yet is neither open nor available for scrutiny without a fee.
This is incorrect. Cooling, whether a fan or passive, is essential to manage CPU temperature.
If you want an optimised “audio” Linux, look at ROCK or Ropieee. These are stripped down to the bare necessities. Interesting that neither makes any claim about “audio quality” whatever that is meant to be.
1 Like
If you wrote this, I guess you’ve never used AudioLinux and you don’t know exactly what you’re talking about…
It’s a pretty standard Arch Linux after all, like Manjaro, with an RT kernel that can be installed there and even on Ubuntu if you need the low latency. Otherwise, it’s well-selected audio software components that are available to just about anywhere when you get into music production. Ubuntu Studio based on Debian does the same.
Why not use ROCK then? I use ROCK on NUC as dedicated Roon core, quite stable, not many upgrades, all controlled by Roon remote. Seems ideal for Linux novices (like me).
I know what you’re saying but I don’t really see how “system services”, on any platform, are going to cause any issues for Roon. I run Roon on a Mac mini M1, that I also use for a whole bunch of other stuff, and Roon doesn’t skip a beat. Admittedly, the client does get sluggish if I have too many RAM hungry apps open, but in normal use it’s fine. System services, on the other hand, typically consume a trivial amount of resources that have little or no effect on how Roon performs.
I can understand the lure of an “optimised OS” – who doesn’t want the best for their Roon core? – but when you actually look at the resources that Roon uses you don’t really need to worry about “system services” or anything else that a modern OS might be doing in the background while you’re playing your music.
I have been using ROCK for a long time and it is a very good solution. I recommend it to all those who do not want to complicate their life with the administration / maintenance of an OS.
I’m currently using AudioLinux due to some important criteria for me. I have written some of these below. ROCK is a closed system and does not fit any of these criteria.
- AudioLinux can be customized or tuned, both as an OS and for the audio area. This is important in general, but especially if you use a USB DAC.
- By definition, AudioLinux is “trying to achieve very low audio and processor latencies”. The user can “adjust” the latency level, depending on his needs and preferences.
- AudioLinux can install many audio-related applications and utilities. You can do this without Linux knowledge, with an easy to use menu.
- AudioLinux includes OS backup functionality. This is done remotely (no screen / keyboard connected). Not only is it very fast, but the backup environment is bootable and can be used on the spot. ROCK requires third party software to back up the OS.
- AudioLinux supports internal Roon storage with several popular formats. It made me desperate that ROCK needed its own special formatting method and all audio files had to be copied every time.
- The technical support from AudioLinux is really impressive: the duration of the answers is measured in minutes, and the duration of the solution in minutes or hours (and very rarely it reaches 1-2 days). It is by far the best technical support I have ever encountered.
One disadvantage of ROCK is it needs to format a second drive if you want/need additional space for audio storage.
With roon on Ubuntu, a drive formatted in windows can be swapped between windows and ubuntu without problems.
I suppose you could purchase extFS for Windows by paragon, but Ubuntu 22.04 already has NTFS3 which is a driver made by paragon to read ntfs.
Ubuntu will also allow you to use hqplayer and cuda on the same machine as RoonServer.
-…just realized another problem, is it’s tough to fit a card with cuda in a Nuc which is what most ppl are using ROCK on. 
1 Like
And there’s a 22.04 minimal ISO to install a stripped-down server on which only the really necessary packages will be installed…
2 Likes
There’s even a minimal install desktop. Which supports VNC screensharing for gui remote access.