Do roon developers ever read anything in here?

The nickname for the secret menu tier with folder browsing, Roon-on-The-Go, a room correction GUI, and AmazonHD and Spotify integration.


[quote=“danny, post:15, topic:144163”]
We’ve always designed the product we want, not the product we are asked for.[/quote]

There’s an uncomfortable level of arrogance in that response, particularly as we are funding your product. Would be nice to know that we are more than just financiers for your personal hobby…


I read that as a matter of phrasing… and then interpreted it as building what they want as in the roots of roon and not building what they are asked for as in not building a bag of spanners.

Maybe I was generous in my reading. Who knows. But I didn’t assume arrogance.


I am curious. What is it about 1.8 specifically that you like. Or if that is going too far, what are the improvements on the dislikes you had about 1.7?

Sure… I’ll have to think back on it. I didn’t use 1.7 for over a year. But some of the high level things…

  1. Scrolling. I know it is a “small” thing. And that was also my frustration… c’mon it’s a “small” thing. Which is also why I started a thread about the themes in 1.8 (never intended as “hey you can re-theme” but more - if you’re going to ditch roon because you don’t like the colour…don’t). The curious mix of horizontal and vertical scrolling did my head in. To me it was always a case of “we built feature x. We built feature y. They’re the same thing, but we implemented them totally differently”). There was a lot of that in 1.7 for me - things suddenly working differently depending on where you were in the product or other things not working at all.
  2. Distinctions between library and streaming. Similar to the above. It felt like the one was a bolt on to the other. The UI separated them. I didn’t really care where my music was coming from and I didn’t see why suggestions were restricted to one… I want to discover music.
  3. Cluttered UI. It was like going into a junk store. You suspect there is some treasure in there but you’re hemmed in with stuff. You get used to turning left… and then can’t. So you have to back out and try again. I found the navigation experience to be pretty fragmented and disjointed.
  4. Relationships between things. I was finding that other streaming tools were making better suggestions and had a better understanding of influencers, followers etc. And yes I get that a lot of it is subjective… I don’t really care what things are called, but suggest links. I can choose to ignore them, or try them, find I don’t agree with them but then follow other links… I wasn’t sitting down and thinking “I want to listen to…”. I wanted to discover and I wasn’t finding discovery particularly good.
  5. Focus. It had its merits. But it was restricted to certain aspects - where the source of the music was and only available in particular aspects of the UI.

1.8? I like the new UI. I like the space. I like that it reads like a magazine. Remember the pictures of album liners that were on the roon website? 1.8 lives up to it a lot more. I like the open spaces. I like the circles (sorry). Focus is a lot more useful, streaming and local library are tighter, the whole experience is more delightful and encourages exploration.


You can’t really create any product by committee or by taking into account your customers demands across the board. There are too many differing views. You have to have a vision as an organisation.


Interesting. I don’t like 1.8. I’m trying to understand why some do and some don’t.

In hindsight I can see I have never really engaged with roon as a player interface. I use several chromecast “displays” around the house for that. For me, roon was more a bag of spanners to integrate my systems and content. As a toolbox, and maybe that’s not your use case, I personally find 1.8 much more difficult to use. I guess that is at least one use case explaining some of the polarization we are seeing.

I don’t disagree, as what you wrote is a mischaracterisation of my position.

We’re not funding a product, we’re buying a product/service. If, as consumers, we don’t like what we get then we can spend our money elsewhere.


Ah the joys of it… I find your position (not liking 1.8 and I am guessing, wishing you had 1.7 again) interesting.

For me 1.7 was just massively jarring, and frustrating. But I can do it over there, but now not here? Why?

I’m probably not the usual user though. I had a career in building companies and software around experiences - which are pretty evocative and will illicit strong opinions. The fact there is the strength of feeling here - negative too - is actually a good thing. When people stop caring then it suggests your software isn’t resonating and isn’t given any emotional response.

The last company I had a fortune 500 say “If you just do this one thing, we will have every person in the company using it”. We didn’t build it. In the end they got what they needed - but not what they asked.

I think you’ve articulated my feelings, and my vague sense of disappointment in Roon despite how awesome I truly think it is, better than I could. I want Roon to be more of a toolbox. Roon wants Roon to be a “magazine” - easy to use, streamlined, etc. But at the cost of actually having an array, a toolkit if you will, of features. Like the ability to put in your own album reviews (especially if it’s blank, as is the case with seemingly half the albums released after about 2005 or so), the ability to have different color schemes/skins, etc. And now things like track tags, playlist visibility etc. have been excised. But are coming back, we’re told.

I guess I want a bit more jRiver in my Roon. Features, options, customizability. Flexibility. Instead Roon seems to be steering everyone to use Roon in the same exact vanilla manner.

But jRiver itself is at the other extreme, with a dizzying array of features, a cluttered and bewildering interface. It’s sometimes fun to user jRiver but I wouldn’t call it relaxing, or easy…I’d need Jriver to be way more like Roon if I was to use it as my daily driver for actual music enjoyment.

If only there was a middle path between the two extremes.


I think the observation was that we are funding a “project” not a product. Owing to Danny saying they are building the product they want…

1 Like

I have no great nostalgia for 1.7. A UI refresh was long overdue and there is a long list of feature requests. I will be adjusting my roon 1.8 expectations though. There are likely going to be a few maintenance releases so I will keep an open mind whether it is viable as a Classical library manager. It still has a value to me for systems integration and some rudimentary local/streaming content integration. No longer the “must have” part of my music listening infrastructure though.

That’s what many people have expressed as their feelings about the two products.
I decided jriver is a toolkit that can’t decide what machine it is designed to maintain. Roon is the machine that starts each time I turn the key and so I don’t need a toolkit.

1 Like

I’ve been through big rearchitecting projects with software and the best way seems to do it under the hood as much as possible. Usually these tasks don’t end up as new features - and so don’t excite the users. But they needed to be done. If you release versions with no “new features” you seem to get a bit of a kicking. We like new toys.

My perception - and it is purely perception - is that roon have been making changes that aren’t “sexy” under the hood. Changes that potentially enable some of the features you’ve mentioned there that just weren’t possible in the old architecture. Alongside these changes they have released a new UI. And some things are bust. But they have a platform to grow from that the older code just wouldn’t have enabled at all.

I think we need to have a bit of patience with this one - see if roon start releasing new things (and fixes). It is pretty reassuring how quickly they put out a release that fixed the major concerns of 1.8 (things not working as opposed to “I wan’t my UI to be all ma-roon”


I think the 1.8 UI is a lot more “polished” and as a result is possibly more restrictive. Is that what you’re finding (and finding frustrating)?

I think the foundations it is on now are a lot more solid that what 1.7 was on - and that should mean it is able to grow in ways that it just could never do before.

1 Like

With the internet - and forums - as they are I think any mature behaviour should be called out!

That is something that comes up which I also find puzzling. Personally I find 1.8 looks a bit rough, especially for Classical. 1.8 uses an unusually low contrast grey on grey color scheme for Classical that many not interested in that genre may not have seen. It is a completely different aesthetic experience to the other genres. Not sure why it was singled out in that way. But no matter. I don’t use roon in that way so I’ll just dial it out. It is important to others though I think.

Yes. There have probably been a lot of changes under the hood. Roon has to differentiate itself from the native streaming apps which are not standing still either. I really like the Qobuz app but one thing they don’t do well is present their content manageably when their streaming search sets are now so large. 1.7 didn’t do any better. Being presented with 3,000 Beethoven’s 5ths, for example, is not much use. It remains to be seen what roon’s solution is, a special case of googles problem as you point out.

There actually have already been attempts to restrict the size of search sets and make them more relevant and context aware in 1.8 if you look. Not entirely successful for the moment. A very long way to go there I think. I rather suspect the answer will come out left field from the research labs rather than roon. Lets see.


Well perhaps, but then your position was based on selective quoting and was needlessly antagonistic imo.

I cannot argue with that.

1 Like