And we are saying that if this is sent:
Then that is what should be, and what is received, using RAAT:
Others are saying that when this is sent:
This is what is, and what should (or should not, depending on their preferences) be, received:
This has nothing at all with you stating that you would like it if Roon took this:
and made it into that, before sending it:
Or that Roon should have the ability to do as much.
“bit perfecters”, as you call us, agree on that.
Haha see my comment above
I’m pretty sure Ansel Adams is turning in his grave right now…
What you’re talking about is artistic editing, or effectively messing around with the original mastering of the musical recording. Whether that in your eyes is an improvement in sound quality is an entirely subjective view based on your preferences.
Posters seem to be talking past each other.
An appropriate analogy here could be image “enhancement” features built in to most modern TVs. Vivid mode, edge enhancement, motion interpolation (aka soap opera effect), etc.
Purists tend to disable such “enhancements.” But Samuel in this case appears to promote the possibility of Roon implementing some unspecified kind of AI driven audio “enhancement” because maybe it would sound “better.”
AJ
Better to whom, though Andrew? Roon gives us the facility to apply filtering in its DSP engine, which we can choose to use or not.
I still want the source material delivered to me as the recording and mastering engineers intended it.
Graeme, of course, and I agree. Did you note my use of quotation marks? The intent was that those judgments are highly subjective, lie in the eye (ear) of the beholder.
AJ
Samuel, I understand your point. You’re talking about Roon offering “enhancements”, but not everyone would consider manipulating the source material as an enhancement.
Ansel Adams was as skilled in the darkroom as he was in the field. His photos wouldn’t be what they are without dodging, burning and other manipulation.
Have you seen any of the work of Man Ray and his solarization techniques?
The thing is you are comparing proposed manipulation to editing. The editing on music has already been done. If you scan one of Ansel Adams’ images into Photoshop and manipulate it, the final result is no longer an Ansel Adams photograph.
I’ve been a photographer for many years - never once have I given a client my raw files. I give them the finished image that I have framed, set the exposure, chosen the colour balance, highlight shadow and midtone balance and the degree of sharpening. If a client takes a RAW image and edits it, it’s no longer my photograph…
Sorry Andrew, I misinterpreted your comment.
I’m really not clear what you’re asking Roon to do to improve sound quality. For example, are you asking for (a) Roon to implement some change that will change the bits it delivers to every endpoint by default, or (b) more facilities to change the bits it delivers to your specific endpoint so that it can be more tailored to your personal liking?
It seems to me that (a) is not going to please everyone - and how could anyone at Roon decide what are the “right” changes to make? On the other hand (b) is probably quite feasible, but needs some further requirement specification to describe exactly what is missing from the facilities (e.g. DSP) Roon currently provides.
Samuel, you’re missing my point. The changes you make are subjective improvements in your view only, like adding salt and pepper to a restaurant meal.
You might like the taste, but not everyone else will.
By all means, adjust the way a particular piece of music sounds to suit your tastes.
It’s not reasonable to ask that Roon does this for you because what you perceive as improvement may be perceived by others as detrimental.
How can perfect not be the right choice? Who’s to say what would be a better choice? As @Graeme_Finlayson mentioned, I think you’re missing the point here - an improvement for one person would be quite the opposite for another.
To my best knowledge there is no such thing as software jitter. Can you point me to some peer reviewed academic papers?
How? How can Roon make transcoding or DSP “better”? How can Roon “improve sound quality”? In what ways is Roon currently lacking?
If you cannot answer those questions, then what you really seek from Roon is just “enhanced” high end audio marketing claims without any real substance. “New and improved,” “our best sounding ever,” etc.
AJ
OK, so let’s stick with the photography analogy. Like Graeme, I was also a photographer for quite a few years, so it’s a topic that I know something about.
Digital workflow for photography goes something like this:
Image Capture
Image encoded as RAW file
RAW file conversion
Image editing
So I take a photograph, then convert the RAW file (maybe in Photoshop, maybe using something else), then edit in Photoshop (or Lightroom, or whatever). Now, the key part here is that the RAW file is the original data. My expectation is that the RAW file that comes out of my camera is the RAW file I will convert and subsequently edit.
If we apply your recent arguments regarding bit-perfect data - and how Roon should somehow enhance this data to ‘make it better’ - and apply them to photography, it would be like asking my camera or the Adobe software I use to alter the RAW file before I have any chance to convert or edit it because it must be able to improve it. No, that wouldn’t be acceptable for photography, and it’s not acceptable for digital music.
shrugs shoulders and cracks open a beer
Venus and Mars springs to mind.
Never been a big fan of Wings 
To continue the photography parallels, Samuel seems to desire a Roon audio equivalent to Fujifilm Film Simulation modes. Not RAW, hence not “bit perfect.” Instead, JPEG and “enhanced.”
But is any simulation “better”? Or which one is “best”? Therein lies the rub.
AJ
Roon represents the signal path with some coloured orbs:
Nobody is saying “enhanced” is bad, but “lossless” means nothing is lost.
