But the problem the OP has (and has had through 160 posts) is that without any signal processing, one ‘bit perfect’ player sounds different than another ‘bit perfect’ player. He then went to the trouble of doing separation of endpoint from core and still claims this problem.
I do not understand how there can be such a difference. I agree with the OP that it sounds crazy to have to buy another app to ‘fix’ a stream. But then, people do all kinds of stuff on the analog side to ‘fix’ upstream problems so everything sounds good again. I guess just because it is digital doesn’t mean it is more logical.
There is no problem. People simply have a number of options to choose from according to what sounds best to them. Using HQPlayer with Roon is not fixing Roon, it is just a bigger palette to choose from. There is no such thing as a single “correct” solution, just a variety of compromises in different directions.
2 Likes
The most “logical” explanation is some form of expectation bias, assuming the OP didn’t achieve a volume mismatch or accidentally enable DSP in one of the programs.
Do a search re Roon vs Audirvana sound quality or just Roon sound quality. I’m not the only one who hears a difference.
Perhaps Audirvana is ‘enhancing’ the signal in some way?
I think you’re probably right.
That is my guess as well. Audirvana is actually applying some DSP; it wouldn’t surprise me if it nips off a bit of treble.
Not sure if he’s implying they change the sound…
Here’s what Darko said a few years ago:
"It also sounds – and I’ll whisper this quietly – better than Roon over USB. But for me with my hardware, it’s better. Not hugely. It’s in the minor upticks in finesse, the slightly greater sense of ease, the minor improvement to bass reach and control and an extra speck of clarity where it’s easier to discern the contribution of individual musicians. When Chris Wood’s backs his own vocals on Riches on the Bold (Trespasser) the harmonic effect is greater.
I tried numerous setups to eliminate variables. Roon and A+ on the same machine, then on different machines. The always presented, consistent in tone if not magnitude. Right now, in my system, A+ shades Roon on sound quality."
2 Likes
…over USB. this has been debated endlessly. Nothing new or surprising here.
1 Like
I didn’t read ‘harsh’ in that review. ‘uptick in finesse’, ‘slightly greater sense of ease’, ‘speck’.
Darko hears bigger differences when he changes socks.
6 Likes
He does seem to indicate if I read that right, that Audirvana may be changing the sound a bit and that could be the difference that I, and others, are hearing.
I get it - The fact that he notices a difference isn’t really compelling since he notices subtle differences all the time. However, I don’t think that changes the fact that many people notice the difference even though others say there can’t be any…
I’m not ‘taking sides’ on this one. I’m really trying to understand what the nature of the issue is.
Obviously DSP would do it. And passing noise from a more heavily worked PC (ie one running Roon) could do it. But you aren’t using DSP, and you have separated core from endpoint.
Might just be ‘one of those things’ we can’t ever hope to understand. Like the Holy Trinity.
Anyway, you have been open-minded to explore means to narrow the gap. I hope the difference isn’t so large in your case to drop Roon.
I appreciate your perspective. I’m not dropping Roon and will spend some time tweaking it in the future. Right now I’m right in the middle of a severe bout of upgraditis and I’m changing a little of everything (speakers, DACs, cables, etc.). Once things settle down I’ll start working with Roon again.
1 Like
“…witness testimony is one of the least reliable forms of evidence.”
“eyewitnesses were susceptible to accepting false information from other witnesses and would then include the “evidence” in their own statements. One cause of this suggestibility was due to participants doubting their own judgement after being exposed to the contradicting information. But we also found that eyewitnesses had genuinely convinced themselves they too had witnessed this false information.”
1 Like
Did you mean to post this somewhere else? Not sure how that applies.
Well, you do have to stretch your imagination a bit to change “eyewitness” to “earwitness”. It’s even worse with hearing, because people actually have vision care and get their eyes checked and wear glasses – and still eyewitness testimony is remarkably unreliable. Imagine how unreliable earwitness testimony must be!
The other thing that struck me is in the first reference. They ran an experiment where they paid actors to give directly false statements about an incident, then queried actual witnesses about what they saw:
…when actors were planted in the group, 52% of the “real” participants gave an incorrect statement. And worryingly, when more than two actors were planted in a group, almost 80% of the participants ended up giving the same incorrect statement
Darko, in this case, plays the role of one of those actors. He’s paid by keeping discussions about arrant nonsense alive by reporting false impressions. This then colors the whole debate about these matters, at least for impressionable reporters. So the fact that many report differences in the sound is a meaningless factoid, even if it’s true. As is the factoid that many do not. Earwitnesses are pointless.
1 Like
Please disregard Darko. You seem to be latching on to him as somehow my proof that people hear differences between Audirvana and Roon. I don’t care what he thinks. My point in citing his article is that he mentions possible changing of the sound by Audirvana. And please note, I didn’t see that other people found differences first and then “find” them myself. I noticed a discrepancy in the sound and then tried to figure out why.
I get it - you don’t believe it. I sought a discussion about the discrepancy and, hopefully, a solution; not a debate about how wrong I am and how right you must be. I’m sure you must be right. You win internet debate of the day.
No, I was simply citing him as one of the folks who have a vested interest in keeping discussions about nonsense alive, thereby filling the role of the “actors” in the study cited. There are plenty of others. The real point is that all of this money-fueled false testimony means that any earwitness account will be pointless.
It’s not that they eyewitnesses in the study didn’t believe they saw what they saw. They did believe, much as you believe you hear a difference. But that doesn’t make it so. Provide some real evidence, and we can talk.