Oxford I can agree with but what’s the beef with Cambridge, (Selwyn 1968-1971) did me no harm but then we didn’t even have pocket calculators
Gimme 6 figure logs and a pencil sharpener
Yes, but the latest news is that it has not happened.
Yes, exactly! and by saying that, you are saying that Roon and Audirvana DO sound different. This would mean that the “digital is digital” argument is null in this case unless there is some additional processing going on even when all conversion and DSP options are turned off in either Roon, Audirvana or both. Not a bad thing what so ever, but one cannot simply say that Roon, Audirvana and other players all sound exactly the same.
Not at all. HQ Player is great and your analogy is incorrect as the Naim NDX 2 and the XPS DR are not mutually exclusive where using ROCK and HQPlayer on a Nucleus are mutually exclusive. You do not need to buy an additional Naim unit to use the XPS DR, but you do need to buy or use a second computer to use HQPlayer with a Nucleus or NUC with ROCK
You got carried away my friend, and jump to false conclusions. Where did I say that my setup and use of Audirvana were exactly the same as now with Roon? When using Audirvana on a Mac, I didn’t have the NOS DAC which I now use. I routinely used Audirvana’s oversampling functions, I definitely didn’t have a bit-perfect stream like I now output from Roon to my DAC.
So, no. I subscribe to what @danny yesterday said in his post on this thread. And I only wanted to refute your claim that Roon needs HQ Player to sound as good as Audirvana. In my experience, it doesn’t need HQP nor oversampling nor any digital processing at all to give me the best sound I have had. That’s my point.
1 Like
You are right, you did not, you just conveniently left that part out when saying you like the sound of Roon best because you know that the new equipment influences the sound quality. You said “Roon is the best sound you have heard” yet you have not listened to both Roon and Audirvana with the same gear under the same conditions, which makes any comparison useless. You simply cannot say that you don’t need HQPlayer to sound as good as Audirvana or any other player since you have not done a legitimate comparison. So either they sound exactly the same, leading to the conclusion that digital sounds the same regardless of the player, or you prefer Roon meaning that Roon and Audirvana sound different leading to the conclusion that the music players influence the sound. So which one is it?
I expect that every single digital music player capable of outputting a bit-perfect stream would sound exactly the same on my current equipment, so why would I do any comparison? Roon gives me a better user experience, better search and discovery functionality, better multi-endpoint experience… so this is why I prefer Roon above any other player. Nothing to do with sound quality. And, as I don’t do upsampling nor DSP nor filtering, why would I use HQ Player? I keep it simple, and for me it works.
4 Likes
You would do a comparison to see if what you suspect is accurate or not, at least to your ears. It is fine if you don’t want to do that, but you can’t then say that they do in fact sound the same or they do sound different because you have no actual experience in that. But moving forward, I also use Roon because of the user experience, how it looks, and the fact that it works pretty flawless to me. But the OP, and my post were discussing sound quality. You don’t have to use HQ Player or upsampling to enjoy Roon, but it seems like most people either use HQPlayer, Upsampling in Roon or some DSP setting (which includes volume leveling). Just because you don’t use any of these does not mean that other people don’t or that they will not hear a difference between music players when using these features. When using those features in Roon or Audirvana, they are going to sound different, and to some people Audirvana may sound better. It may not to other people. That does not mean anyone is wrong. Although it may mean that you cannot get Roon to sound like Audirvana.
1 Like
You are addressing a different question. Yes, one can test if lossless is lossless. The question is more about do various audio playback software sound the same? If all are playing a lossless file, does Roon sound the same as BitPerfect, or Amarra, or HQPlayer, or Audirvana, or JRiver, etc? The answer is an emphatic no, they all sound different.
We don’t ultimately listen to the “bit perfectness” of an audio file, we listen to how that Bit perfect file sounds when played through playback software.
If’s a bit like giving 5 chefs the same ingredients. Yes, one can say “hey, they all have the same ingredients, no matter what they make, will be the same”. Obviously, it depends on how they cook and prepare those same ingredients that will effect how the food tastes.
Each audio playback software is designed by a different chef.
3 Likes
This is a topic of debate. Many strongly prefer HQPlayer to Roon’s sound engine. Others prefer Roon. Given that you prefer Audirvana right off the bat, it’s possible you might prefer the sound of Roon with HQPlayer. But it’s a matter of trial and error, there is no universal decree.
And you really don’t have to do this whole two machine NAA dance. Audiophiles can be a bit crazy, and the audiophile universe is devoid of science based listening tests, even at the professional reviewer level, much less forums like these.
A segment of audiophiles insist that a two box solution is the only possible way. It is doctrine across many internet discussion sites. But this theory has never been scientifically tested, either in the form of comprehensive measurements, or legit listening tests, so take it with a grain of salt.
HQPlayer has a free trial. It’s a chore to setup, but the developer @jussi_laako participates in these forums and he’ll help you get going. You can put HQP and Roon on the same computer and see how that compares to Audirvana.
Over time, as you descend into our madness, you can consider a NAA as budget allows. The SOTM Neo is a NAA and only costs $400. Amazon sells $120 mini-computers that can be an NAA. Allo has solutions that cost under $300 that Darko says challenge any streamer under $3000. So it doesn’t have to be a major expense.
2 Likes
Many people refer to the sound of the DSP adjusted audio when talking about Amarra, HQ Player, Audrivana, etc… Remember, most of those systems alter the bits. For example, HQ Player is universally lauded for SQ, and it is all about changing the bits.
Now, assuming we are leaving out all the non-bit perfect stuff, including HQ Player…
I disagree, they do not sound different. If interchanging bit perfect players in your systems makes a difference when playing back bit perfectly, it is the other stuff downstream that sounds different, not these players (ignoring for a moment that it might also be placebo).
If your system downstream can be impacted by minute differences in acoustic noise, electrical noise, magnetic interference, etc, then you should work hard to fixing the downstream devices, as they are screwing up the sound in the analog phases (which includes the digital to analog conversion).
I have written about why digital audio can’t have fidelity problems but can have an impact on the final fidelity of the audio here:
If you feel your bit-perfect player is making your DAC/Amp/Speakers sound worse, isolate the player physically, acoustically, and electrically from the DAC/Amp/Speakers. Even if your DAC/Amp/Speakers are impacted by in a way that results in poorer fidelity when using program “A” vs program “B”, nothing could be better than removing all impact. You can achieve that by physical, acoustic, and electrical isolation.
5 Likes
The reason people talk about two box solutions is because it isolates processing noise from the DAC.
Do people who use two box solutions hear a difference between bit perfect players ? I think I’ve heard at least one user say that, but I can’t recall two. Almost universally the people who talk about audible differences between bit-perfect players are using a direct USB connection between computer and DAC.
3 Likes
I can safely say I have heard zero difference. I have all my players seperated. I have tested Audivarna over UPnP , LMS, Roon and Asset. Zero difference.
Maybe you should grab this from eBay.
Or this -
1 Like
Have you seen Stereophile’s measurements of the Wolf server a couple months ago? https://www.stereophile.com/content/wolf-audio-systems-alpha-3-sx-music-server-measurements
See figures 2 and 3: I find it fascinating that John Atkinson was able to measure different jitter spectra from the same hardware, with only the software being different.
Important caveats: 1) These are quite low level differences, so audibility is reasonable to question; 2) Atkinson had to measure an AudioQuest DragonFly, as a Mytek Brooklyn showed no difference.
Still, this is the first measurement I’ve seen that shows a software-induced difference. I find such differences surprising, because the mechanism for application to influence timing at this level isn’t intuitively obvious…
Got it set up (case comes Tuesday). Sounds pretty darn good. Haven’t had a chance to compare with Audirvana yet because I haven’t searched how to set up DLNA. Hopefully, it isn’t too difficult. Would like to compare with Foobar too.
2 Likes
Way to go. So, your receiver has USB in? Did you order the FLIRC case? In case you’re wondering, I leave my RPi4 running 24/7.
I ordered the FLIRC case.
It’s going from Pi to IFI to DAC. The amp only has RCA ins. New DAC should be here next week too.
1 Like
Is the iFi new also?