The master BSer tells his tale, snake oil mixed with a just tad of science and for sale to the perfect audience: audiophiles.
3 Likes
He says Secret Sauceā¦
And many of the followers do not understand that the promise āSounds like the originalā doesnāt make sense at all.
In these days, in the audiophile realm, they go far beyond āfake until you make itā. Itās pure fake.
And some customers want to believe in fake so much that they spent a fortune on such.
And as long as there are enough of such customers such business will exist.
roon in contrast, is always very honest and true about what their system is, what you can expect regarding audio āqualityā and what not. They do not need to tell you fake stories.
4 Likes
There is only one way to do it faithfully, published more than 3 quarters of a century ago. Those āphilosophiesā are just marketing fluff.
You are however right that the only differences in quality can only appear on the analog side, not the digital - unless the latter is either not bit perfect or is downright broken.
2 Likes
I just checked and currently Maestro is priced at $99 a year, which is less than the cost of Roon. As any audiophile in good standing can tell you, the more expensive something is the better it sounds so therefore Roon, which costs more than Maestro, is clearly better than Maestro. No testing needed.
6 Likes
Yes, Maestro still has many issues that need to be resolved, but it does improve with each new update.
It may sound crazy that users have to pay for beta software, even though there is a 30-day free trial. However, many users, including myself, are happy to do so. The reason is simple: we genuinely feel that the sound quality is better, even if some may say that judgment is subjective.
I have been a long-time Roon user since its first year, and nowadays I rarely listen through Roon except when using it for library management, which I still consider the best available.
There are around 1,800 posts in the thread āAnyone using Paulās Maestro Music Management System?ā
Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about software issues. However, despite those concerns, most users seem to be very happy with the sound quality.
Are users, including myself, biased or simply being subjective? Perhaps. But when so many listeners independently reach a similar conclusion, there is likely a reason behind it.
Yes, bias is universal.
Thatās why I donāt do listening comparisons, I just enjoy what Iām listening to at the moment.
7 Likes
You canāt measure truth based on how many people believe something. Crowds are easily manipulated.
But then again, are there that many? Itās people who are sufficiently vocal on particular forums dedicated to niche products.
3 Likes
As my brother used to say when I would ādo like the othersā ; why donāt you eat sh*t, five billion flies canāt be wrong.
8 Likes
I believe, though, that the statements and narratives in Paul McGowanās videos are not helpful to underpin any audible sonic improvement. If, on a high level, I understand correctly what Maestro Music does, it uses oneās Qobuz credentials to pull a Qobuz stream from Qobuzā cloud and play it through the digital output of the system it is installed on. If this is a Windows PC, it will probably be a USB output. Or maybe (which I donāt know, since I havenāt tried Maestro Music) it is also able to have the Qobuz stream go directly to a Qobuz Connect enabled device.
In the first case, unless it touches the stream, which would impair its ābit perfection", this is the exact same thing which the Qobuz for Windows App does. In the latter case, it doesnāt even see the stream let alone touch it given its direct path from Qobuz to the client device.
So, I fail to see where some āmagic sonic improvement" could stem from unless DSP is engaged (in the first case). So I would be really interested in Paul explaining more in detail what exactly Maestro Music does to the music if he wants to convince people like myself that there is an audible step-up in quality.
I do see, however, the value of having better AI-supported playlists etc. That may well be worth the money, for those interested.
Wow that wonderful I canāt wait to hear Jimi Hendrix playing with Chick Webb Orchestra, which is something AI slop would say is available and if not available AI would just make it so. AI slop, perhaps the best reason yet to avoid Maestro
1 Like
To be fair, not everything AI is slop, but I personally donāt care about any kind of suggestions based on my habits, AI or not.
2 Likes
Compared Maestro back to back with roon and ripped CDs on my local network and found it similar in sound to ripped CDs and marked improvment both Tidal and qobuz over roon, If they can create similar functionality to what roon offers then this will be a no brainer for any serious audiophile.
WOW!!!
The audio output from latest Roon update (2.71) makes the audio from Maestro sound like it coming from an underwater $10 transistor radio. RAAT RULES!!!
4 Likes
Just to clarify, when you say āno testing needed,ā do you mean that you havenāt actually listened to Maestro? If so, Iād be interested to understand whether your view is that all playback software sounds essentially the same, or whether you believe Maestro is unlikely to sound as good as Roon even without a direct comparison.
Related to that, how do you reconcile that position with comments suggesting that Roon 2.71 makes Maestro sound dramatically worse, ālike an underwater $10 transistor radioā? Statements like that seem to imply that software can affect perceived sound quality.
Iām asking out of genuine curiosity, not to argue. Is there a particular reason, experience, or past interaction that has shaped your view of PS Audio, and especially of Paul McGowan? Iād be interested in understanding your perspective.
1 Like
Heās being sarcastic.
3 Likes
Iām always amazed at how when one uses their ālogicā on them audiophiles get all upset. So letās through things one by one.
ācomments suggesting that Roon 2.71 makes Maestro sound dramatically worse, ālike an underwater $10 transistor radioā?ā
I didnāt say that Roon 2.71 make Maestro sound worse but rather that compared with pristine sound of Roon 2.71, Maestro sounds worse.
āStatements like that seem to imply that software can affect perceived sound quality.ā Isnāt this what many audiophiles, including Mr. McGowan, have been saying for years?
āIs there a particular reason, experience, or past interaction that has shaped your view of PS Audio, and especially of Paul McGowan?ā Plain and simple McGowan pedals audiophile nonsense under the veneer of engineering and science. Very similar to all those phony white papers and white lab coats that appear in advertisements for audio products which make claims that are totally unscientific. I suspect that McGowan knows his audiophile audience very well and therefore feeds them a steady diet of audiophile mumbo jumbo. And the audiophiles eat it up like manna from heaven.
And finally if your audio system cannot reveal the vast differences in the superior sound quality of Roon 2.71 versus the inferior Maestro then you need a more resolving audio system.
3 Likes
(post deleted by author)
I think there is an important point of consistency here.
You have argued that many audio products and playback software are essentially snake oil because they lack scientific evidence. If that is the standard you apply to others, then the same standard should also apply to your claim that Roon sounds better than Maestro.
Can you provide any scientific evidence that demonstrates Roon 2.71 has superior sound quality to Maestro under controlled conditions? For example, published measurements showing lower noise, lower distortion, lower jitter at the DAC output, verified bitstream differences, or properly conducted double-blind listening tests with statistically significant results.
If your answer is no, and your conclusion is based solely on what you believe you heard, then your statement is not a scientific conclusion; it is a subjective listening impression. And that is precisely the type of claim you criticize when made by audiophiles.
My point is not that your preference for Roon is invalid. Personal preference is entirely legitimate. The point is that one cannot reject other peopleās listening impressions as unscientific nonsense while simultaneously presenting oneās own listening impression as if it were an established fact.
There is also another issue: you previously indicated that you had no intention of trying Maestro. If you have not actually listened to Maestro in your own system, how can you confidently know its sonic character, and on what basis can you conclude that Roon is superior? A meaningful comparison normally requires direct experience with both products under comparable conditions.
A scientifically consistent position would be one of the following:
-
Provide objective evidence that Roon is superior; or
-
Acknowledge that your statement is a subjective preference rather than a proven fact.
What is difficult to defend is a third position: dismissing other peopleās listening reports as snake oil while expecting your own unsupported listening judgment to be treated as objective truth.