A fair question to consider is why Roon Labs has not taken any visible action regarding certification status. In situations like this with, continued certification could reasonably be interpreted by some as implicit confidence in a partner’s conduct. Greater transparency or clarification from Roon would help ensure that its standards—and the expectations tied to its certification and manufacture conduct are clearly understood and consistently upheld. @Mytek_Audio
1 Like
I doubt that the contract for Roon Ready certification gives Roon the rights to meddle in the OEM’s business affairs. Which OEM would enter into such a relationship?!
1 Like
Good point but the reason I mentioned this is that the Brooklyn Bridge II has a built in Roon core. So that relationship is more of a collaboration than a simple contractual agreement like the majority of the end point hardware manufacturers.
Not strictly accurate , if its Roon Ready it has simply used the Roon Bridge software in it’s base software to enable it to interpret RAAT
Roon Core is misleading , its the now disused name for Roon Server , it used to be Core and End Point
1 Like
The Brooklyn Bridge II has a built in NUC / Roon Server via the specification sheet on their webpage. That took some serious collaboration with Roon, just sayin.
Per the website:
That’s quite some conclusion to arrive at from their webpage, which interchangeably mentions MytekOS and Roon OS. Roon support ends with the Roon server binary. As we’ve seen recently, if the host OS doesn’t meet the minimum requirements to running Roon server, it is not supported and Roon may not work.
But let’s be clear. The BBII can’t be running Roon OS since its single SSD includes OS and data/media.
IDK whether the BBII ships with Roon Server (freely available for download, but not distribution), or downloads and installs on first use, but the only part of the device that is Roon certified is the streamer, i.e., Roon Ready.
2 Likes
Not sure why we are debating the “specs,” of the BB 2. My post was merely to highlight a potential avenue to hold a “bad,” actor accountable in the HIFI community. Simple as that.
1 Like
Because you appear to implicate Roon without good reason. Indeed, you were first to post the specifications, and to interpret them incorrectly.
@mjw I won’t be engaging in your taunting and obvious attempt to get a rise out of me. You are a moderator so please lead by example and be more kind.
1 Like
I think you need to reflect a little on the comments and the sequence I which they played out.
You did bring up the specs and you did make unsubstantiated claims without any evidence.
Maybe its time to withdraw or re-think your claims.
1 Like
Lads, lads. Let’s not lose sight of the topic or the adversary here. It’s not us, and it’s not Roon. It’s @Mytek_Audio. Roon had the misfortune of being taken by them just like the consumer. If they have made missteps or there is a feeling they should reevaluate their position, let’s have that discussion on its own merits in its own post. I’m all for that.
This post was begun and carried on to showcase @Mytek_Audio’s awful service surrounding its terrible overall business practices. It was not to determine if Roon is playing a complicit role in enabling Mytek’s continued unethical conduct. That is an understandably contentious issue, but I do think it’s one deserving of a post and community comment. Just not here 
.
2 Likes
well said @JohnSherlockHolmes and my apologies for adding to a already controversial experience for many. To distill my intention I was simply trying to brainstorm on how @Mytek_Audio could be held accountable for their current and past behavior which to date appears to be deplorable at best. So my apologies for muddying the waters.
1 Like
Umm you literally wrote:
2 Likes
I wouldn’t say Roon hasn’t done anything… All in all this is I think one of the few places (if not the only one, maybe apart from ASR ) where @Mytek_Audio failed to convince admins to delete unfavorable posts.
3 Likes