I’m guessing that Qobuz Connect sound noticeably better than Roon

I’m not arguing for or against any particular position. I’m merely pointing out why some camps might say there is less noise. A Roon Core, be it on a computer, NUC, or Nucleus is an extra device. That device has a power supply, power cable, etc, usually of dubious quality. Plus the signal must traverse the network itself to reach the endpoint. One possibility as to why Quboz Connect sounds better to some is that it eliminates that extra device.

Also, consumer computers are not designed for high end audio. They have not been designed to eliminate the type of noise that a typical high end device is designed to eliminate. In that regard, the computer/NUC/Nucleus is the weakest link in an otherwise high-end set up. Antipodes, Pink Faun, Taiko Audio, Wadax and the like do design very high end Roon Core servers. But they cost a fortune (up to $100K) and having never heard one, I can’t say if they sound better.

I’d hope so though!

1 Like

That’s your mistake, and the mistake of everyone who makes this claim with little understanding of the underlying technologies. Your household was full of electrically noisy devices already before that server was added. And in packet switched networks, which are all the domestic LANs we are talking about, it does not matter where the packets arriving at an endpoint come from, whether from the router (as in Qobuz) or from the Roon server. Claiming that the source can affect the endpoint is no more based on physical fact than claiming that the force I use when placing a letter in the mailbox affects the force the postal worker uses to deliver that letter to your home.

Poorly designed or implemented endpoints can behave differently with different streaming protocols. The answer is to throw away that junk. Just did that to an endpoint from a well-known vendor, replacing it with a self-assembled Pi-based box that works perfectly with Ropieee.

You may prefer the ad copy of expensive “audio” server vendors. I prefer actually understanding computing and networking technology, my business since the late 1970s.

24 Likes

My 12,000 server farm is nodding with you. :sunglasses:

1 Like

I appreciate your opinion. I do not agree with that opinion, and there are enumerable HiFi industry insiders who also see it differently than you. Your opinion would be the death of the entire high end streamer/ server market.

And you know what, it’s totally ok that you have a different opinion.

These forums are such peculiar places. There seems to often be little understanding that different, equally well educated opinions can exist.

Dear sir, welcome to the human race.

1 Like

My Roon program lives on a Nucleus with separate solid state power supply. The dCS Bartok DAC is hardwire connected to the Nucleus via ethernet local network.
I compare Qobuz via Roon/Nucleus and the Bartok’s internal streamer program Mosaic.
I detect absolutely no sound differences but a huge information, convenience and presentation benefit with Roon.

1 Like

… with epicycles, phlogiston, alchemy, miasma theory, …

11 Likes

I don’t really subscribe to the theory that the source computers are adding “noise” to the data (I try to keep an open mind though).

It seems to me though that a music service like Qobuz, Tidal, or any others are probably running their servers on something like the Amazon Cloud Services which are in huge data centers certainly not designed with high end audio in mind. Add to the the myriad of routers and switches the data must pass through to get to your home network and it seems to me that a computer on your home network that you have control over stands a better chance of not adding “noise” than any of the streaming services.

I could be wrong of course. :blush:

7 Likes

The data is stored in digital format. If there was any interference in transmission if would result in packet error and resend of packet. The music is converted at your end of the wire.

11 Likes

Funny that nobody makes the comparison with electronic banking. If like some say, there’s noise in the digital packets, then surely I should notice that on my bank account, it uses 100% the same technology (no Flac or mp3, heh).

Maybe they should put a Dyson vacuum cleaner next to their ethernet switch to suck up the dirt from the packets. :joy:

19 Likes

Also known as “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”.

Now you’re talking!

11 Likes

Best explanation that most people overlook!Has anyone had a peek behind the curtain at Roon?I doubt it.No doubt that Roon has one of the best UI’s out there, but I am willing to sacrifice that for a more life like sound….isn’t that what it’s all about? Cheers to you DancingSea for putting my thoughts into words so eloquently !!

(…it’s just Danny D twiddling dials)

2 Likes

What exactly happens when using Muse?Does anyone know what Roon actually does behind the curtains?Is that proprietary information?I would say YES!

Roon stages Qobuz files to the local Roon core and streams from there to the active endpoint/zone.

One issue with services like Qobuz is that they have to have some mechanism for fall-back when using a slow channel for delivery. They automatically change resolutions when the TCP resend requests start piling up.

I’ve never seen Roon do that. We had some ISP hardware problems this fall. ISP’s ONT didn’t like the power it was fed and kept restarting. This was traced to a colicky UPS that was repurposed. Through all this, Roon would just keep playing.Their server side protocols were pretty much immune to ISP hardware restarting. I’m not sure Qobuz App would be.

1 Like

Let us bring some light into the ‚transmissions tunnel‘ of digital data (whereas also music streaming belongs to).

The techniques used in IP data transmission are the product of decades of research in computer science, electrical engineering, and information theory. In summary: various techniques are employed to detect, correct, or avoid errors that may result from interference, dropouts, or other issues in the network. The basic problem (that bits sent by the sender aren‘t the same as received by the receiver) is solved. Period! (I loved the example about electronic banking).

Following the most important main techniques with more explanations:

  1. Error Detection Techniques

These help identify whether an error has occurred in a data packet.

Checksums: Used in IPv4 headers and TCP/UDP segments. A checksum is a simple mathematical calculation over the data; the receiver can recompute it to check for corruption.

Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC): Common in lower layers (e.g., Ethernet frames). CRC uses polynomial division to detect burst errors effectively.

Parity Bits (less common in IP): Used more in older or simpler communication systems; adds a bit to indicate even or odd parity.

  1. Error Correction Techniques

These go beyond detection by allowing the receiver to correct errors.

Forward Error Correction (FEC): Common in wireless or real-time applications (e.g., video streaming, VoIP). Redundant data is sent so that errors can be corrected at the receiver without retransmission (e.g., Reed-Solomon codes, convolutional codes).

  1. Retransmission Strategies

Used in reliable protocols like TCP to recover lost or corrupted data.

Acknowledgements (ACKs): The receiver acknowledges receipt of packets. If not received in time, the sender retransmits.

Sequence Numbers: Allow detection of missing or out-of-order packets.

Timeouts and Retransmissions: If an ACK isn’t received in time, the sender assumes the packet was lost and resends it.

Selective Acknowledgment (SACK): TCP option that allows the receiver to inform the sender about all the segments that have been received successfully, so only the missing parts are retransmitted.

  1. Interleaving and Redundancy

Used especially in multimedia streaming and wireless communications.

Interleaving: Data is rearranged before transmission so that burst errors affect non-consecutive parts. This improves FEC effectiveness.

Redundant Packets: Extra packets may be sent so that if one is lost, the receiver can reconstruct the missing data.

  1. Congestion Control and Avoidance

These mechanisms reduce the chance of packet loss due to overloaded networks.

TCP Congestion Control: Algorithms like Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit, and Fast Recovery dynamically adjust transmission rates based on perceived network conditions.

  1. Link Layer Reliability

The data link layer (like Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or cellular links) often includes:

Automatic Repeat reQuest (ARQ): Frames with errors are detected (via CRC) and retransmitted upon request.

Quality of Service (QoS): Prioritizes certain traffic (e.g., voice, video) to reduce latency and packet loss.

Hope that helps for the discussion.

15 Likes

I am shocked, shocked to find that people peddling expensive servers would want you to believe tht expensive servers are needed! Shocked!

A win-win situation!

13 Likes

I’ve compared Roon vs. Qobuz Connect and Qobuz Connect sounds better IMO. Qobuz Connect sounds cleaner and more refined from top to bottom of the frequency range. Roon still sounds good, but I can clearly hear the difference between the two. Roon is still the best music cataloging music player and the most informative, but I would like to see them improve the sound quality of Roon to match or outperform the sound of my music streamer and/or Qobuz Connect. I’ve noticed the sound of any music streamer I’ve owned sounded better than Roon when I used it without playing Roon. Not sure why? I’m still a fan of Roon though!

1 Like

Why are you asking me? I know nothing about Muse, not do I use it. All my Roon use is bit perfect to the endpoint (or HQPlayer server).

Probably the same / similar mathematical transformations that everyone else does with DSP. It’s not as if there are great secrets there for anyone who actually knows this stuff.

However, this is beside the discussion or it’s a different one. Of course it can sound different if Roon and/or Qobuz have DSP enabled or if the endpoint treats the two sources differently.

4 Likes

Hi @DBT !

I have performed the RME’s Bit Test on my RME ADI-2 DAC FS with the WAV test files played on Roon and all of them have passed the test, from USB and SPDIF interfaces.

I guess that this means that Roon plays the streams bit perfect, i.e. the sound quality does not improve nor becomes worse: it’s the same info. Of course, as far as you don’t play with DSP settings.

4 Likes