Ironically, what you say is absolutely spot on - as Peter and I mentioned a few posts above, there is nothing else that can be done if a certain software already ensures “bit-perfection”, unless one does NOT want bit-perfection but rather some kind of filter to increase volumes, treble, etc.
So in the end, if the Roon team simply stated that “SQ is vastly improved in version 1.8” and added a few buzzwords here and there, what can people do? Nothing.
Because other than objective bit-perfection measurements, SQ per se cannot be gauged - every pair of ears in this world will have its own perception of how “great” or “bad” a sound is; and such marketing speak will always leave room for plausible deniability, as subjectiveness cannot be “proven” against.
People need to understand that, IF we are to believe that this or that software is bit-perfect, whatever difference they can hear exists in the analogue world, period.
I used JRiver MC before Roon and when I took my first trial run with Roon, I also compared these two software against each other for a very long time. I had three trial runs for Roon and one year subscription before I went for lifetime license.
I loved Roon’s interface from the beginning but I did notice quite clear difference in sound quality between JRMC and Roon. Neither one was better but they were different. I ran both software on my desktop PC with Win10 and it was connected to Mutec MC-3+ USB bridge and from there to Naim DAC and so on.
JRMC had smoother sound and slightly heavier bass end while Roon has crisper and slightly brighter sound signature. I used both back and forth for well over a year and the difference was consistent. Both software output bitperfect signal with nothing added to the signal path. I never could explain why there was a difference in the sound quality but it was very obvious to me.
Back then with my old setup, I preferred JRMC and it was the main reason it took me so long to go full Roon. Eventually I just couldn’t live with any other interface anymore since Roon’s is superior to anything else so I just gave up with JRMC and bought lifetime for Roon. I haven’t given a thought for the Roon’s SQ after that.
Every version of Roon sounded slightly different even though Roon engineers say they never touched the bit perfect system inside roon.
Just remember there’s a ghost in digital systems that no one 100% understand yet.
That seems to me to be quite a telling comment. While you were giving thought to the differences between Roon’s and JRMC’s sound quality, you were probably bound to hear (consistent) differences.
Well I had the two software installed for well over a year so obviously I didn’t try to hear differences every time I used one or another. The difference just was there and would probably still be if I would like to compare the two but as I said, Roon’s UI and other features are superior so I’m not interested to compare it to anything else anymore since I wouldn’t switch to anything else anyway.
I always enjoy reading this kind of discussions, whereby we are divided into two distinct camps (objectivists and subjectivists for a better term), arguing passionately between us. I must say, I am in the middle and I will argue that this is the best seat to sit in.
For those that believe that Roon (or other bit perfect software) sounds “worst” than say Audirvana: Have you heard of the term psychoacoustics? Here is the link from Wikipedia Psychoacoustics - Wikipedia. At least please read the following from that page:
“The term “psychoacoustics” also arises in discussions about cognitive psychology and the effects that personal expectations, prejudices, and predispositions may have on listeners’ relative evaluations and comparisons of sonic aesthetics and acuity and on listeners’ varying determinations about the relative qualities of various musical instruments and performers. The expression that one “hears what one wants (or expects) to hear” may pertain in such discussions.”
And to prove it…: when you listen to a track/album etc. do you find yourself that some times sounds wonderful and some other times almost awful? That is from the same exact system, without the slightest change… I happens to me many times…Given that the answer is yes, when the sound of your system is “true”? When it sounds wonderful or when, awful? Just give it some thought… If you do, you may start questioning the old wisdom “…trust your ears…”. The hearing process is far more complex than we may believe (please have a look at the Wikipedia article…).
To the subjectivists now: Science progresses over time. It allows us to discover new wonderful things every day. Regarding the field of Networking and data transmission, we do know ALOT by now, since the field counts several decades in existence. HOWEVER, it is only relatively recently (5-10 years maybe) that this area has been used for high end AUDIO as opposed to “computer data” transmission. Is it possible therefore, that we MIGHT, just MIGHT, don’t know everything about it? That there might be some elements in the data transmission chain, that while are inconsequential for computer “bits”, they play an important role in the audio domain?
In concluding this lengthy expressed view… I don’t always trust my ears, but I cannot dismiss what I “most of the times” hear, but also I cannot dismiss the scientific measurements that may go against of what my ears tell me.
In the end of the day however, this is why I like this “lonely” hobby (did you notice that most if not all of the time we listen ALONE?). It allows me to interact with other “lonely” people like you guys, with passion!!!
Complete bullsh!t until you substantiate those fantasies with measurements.
See this. I’m not entirely certain which part of “CERN”, and “they count atoms” doesn’t compute in the minds of people with delusions of grandeur such as “I hear stuff that can’t be measured”.
I used to play around with music production DAWs for years and on one application you could change the colour scheme of the layout to whatever you wanted.
The different colour schemes sounded different.
This was ofcourse all in my head. But it is so easy to be fooled.
At the IBM Research Lab they were researching on hot super conductors, when I was UNIX/network admin for them. A super conductor has zero electrical resistance below a certain temperature. When I was there you only got to that state at -273° C.
The goal was to find superconductivity at “normal” temperatures, to build faster and better computers.
At the CERN they do research on basic constituents of matter – fundamental particles. They also do experiments with subatomic particles. They let them collide to get insights into the fundamental laws of nature. Again I was just in UNIX/network admin. So do not ask me about physics.
Maybe common audiophiles and audio manufacturers do not fully understand what’s going on. The physicists working there, they do.
I’m not one to side with argument by authority by default, but until proven wrong, I’ll still consider it reasonable to wager that a 70 year, 20+ country, 2500 employee scientific project knows a good bit more about a technical topic than a car tuner.
I hope you’ll agree, because guess whose side you’re on right now ?
Audiophiles, clearly. Manufacturers, even though as far as I know, hifi has a bit of the reputation of being where the guy at the back of the engineering class next to the window goes to have a career, I’d rather assume malice rather than that degree of incompetence, if only mostly out of respect for the institutions who awarded them their degrees.
My favorite evidence-free swipe from those who can “hear” what can’t be measured is that I’m the lucky one because I can’t hear the struggle between their ears. Uh huh. It’s a combination of self-aggrandizement, condescension, and ipse dixit logic, all in one preening bon mot.
There is no maybe here: HQPlayer modifies the signal.
It isn’t bit perfect anymore. HQPlayer is not what I was talking about, or what @Peter_Bruderer was talking about. We were talking about the delusional claim that identical signals sound different on identical equipment, depending on how they’re transmitted.
Of course I can’t prove a NEGATIVE, because you CANNOT. You can easily prove that a signal is bit-perfect, if only by reading a damn MQA file.
That is why the onus of proof is on the people who are making outlandish, outrageous claims that there IS a difference.
Scepticism is entirely welcome, and you are also right that there are doubtless things about pyschoaoustics and digital audio that are as yet unknown. I think the point has been made before, no one is claiming that you can measure everything, or even if you could; interpret those measurements in a way to make a meaningful assessment of the quality of something.
But, some things are well understood and we can break a problem down into its smallest and simplest parts that then make provable assertions about those with well founded assumptions that they will scale back up.
Eg. Ignoring the whole digital chain, your equipment, software etc. If the analogue electrical signal coming out of your equipment is the exact same signal, that signal will pass along a speaker wire and drive the drivers (electrical motors) in your speakers and produce the exact same sound (taking into account random fluctuations of the universe).
Thus we can make assertions like, if the electrical output produced is the exact same thing when I stream using software A and software B, then they are indeed sending the same data, leading inevitably to the conclusion: any perceived difference is an illusion.
Ps. You aren’t alone, according to Roon, you are listening with 100K others, who literally help decide via valance what you are listening to.
You can’t equate a raw photo to a fully mastered audio file though.
The music has been mastered, night mode is already on.
You wouldn’t expect to get a photo by Ansel Adams and then apply your HDR filter, its not what the artist and their team wanted.
Edit. Though Roon does provide the tools to do this if you so desire, DSP is a big toolbox that is intended to compensate for issues with your equipment/room so you can get back to what the original artist intended. Or if you like Mona Lisa in a pink hat, to add a massive bass boost. But Roon, and really other software vendors shouldn’t be making these choices for you.
Your analogy with photo manupilation raises the question weather you are searching for a more realistic sound (the raw photo) or a polished, dramatisized, romantisized version of reality (the manipulated photo)? Or have we all become this far that the manipulated version of reality has become more real then reality itself?
Roon isn’t creating a photograph. To use your analogy, an engineer did that in a mastering studio. Roon is delivering to you a perfect copy of the engineer’s photo with his chosen manipulations of the RAW file. If you choose to muck it up, that’s up to you.
The original post claimed that other software made improvements to already bit-exact delivery.
No one in their right mind is saying that sound quality cannot be modified to be improved, or that Roon can’t do it, or that you can’t do it through Roon.
Clearly you understand nothing at all about photography, digital or otherwise. If you did, you wouldn’t try to use it, and especially not in this way. I’ll just leave it at “what you’re describing has nothing at all to do with digital, and, amongst other things, to do with the difference between the spectral photosensitivity of an image capturing medium, and the human eye”.
Also, just so you know, your “bit perfect” raw file (wherever the hell that concept came from) is transmitted in a bit exact way from your camera to your raw converter. If it wasn’t, you’d probably either have visible artefacts, or your raw converter would have trouble opening the file.
While I’m at it, that raw file generally isn’t just a dump of what your sensor recorded: there’s generally processing before it’s made into your raw file. There are a few exceptions that I can kinda think of here, but they’re edge cases, so if you’re using a camera (including a cellphone), you can rest very assured that your RAW file is already massaged into making it more useable.
I’m sorry for being so blunt, but I’ve somewhat had it with the current a-scientific hokum.
4 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
189
