Looks a little complicated. According to this, the window to downgrade from Roon 2.0 to Roon 1.8 Legacy will be open for six weeks, so there is no big rush for you to do it. You might want to stay with Roon 2.0 for while and give it a fair trial.
I doubt you can move an authorization over if you have no internet…so that blows this idea out of the water.
I can maybe point my Lumin to my 300k+ library but that doesn’t get me to the other non Lumin devices on my network.
I do it all the time. I use my iPhone hotspot with my Dell to authorize the Dell and unauthorize my Nucleus. You’re not connecting to your other device, it connects to Roon. Then I use hotspot data for a week or two with my Dell to use Roon when out of town and stream from Tidal and Qobuz.
This is just an idea I had to be able to have Roon ARC (with Roon 2.0) and play your local music files when your internet is down (with Roon 1.8). My other idea is to subscribe to Audirvana Origin lifetime for $120.
I’m not trying to figure out what Roon needs to do, that’s up to them. I’m figuring out what I would do if I had a bunch of local music files, which I don’t. I always try to be proactive and solve problems.
I could have done this yesterday in 30 seconds by switching from my Nucleus on 2.0 to my Dell on 1.8. My Dell can connect to my endpoints via RAAT. Now that I have switched the Dell to Roon 2.0 this idea would not work for me unless I switched back to Roon 1.8 Legacy.
Still a massive kludge. Roon needs to get a grip on this before it kills the whole fan base. Clearly not everyone as users is connected to the community regularly and many will only find out about this when it’s broken and too late.
This depends on circumstance. Such as, when was the 1.8 Core last authenticated? And it’d better be on constantly as Auth seems an essential step in start up.
Just out of curiosity, i have a secondary Core running 1.8 in my listening space. It carries a similar local library as my main 2.0 Core and was authenticated upon it’s “downgrade” from 2.0.
On my main iPad and iPhone i have downloaded the 1.8 Remote.
When finished with the setup, checking connectivity and playback, i cut the 1.8 Core from internet access.
Then i switched the Core to the internet enabled 2.0, and when it was authenticated properly, it is working fine.
So basically i have two system running at this time. And no, this is not a violation of my license as both systems play to the very same endpoint, i.e. not concurrently. I’m just ducking the auth mechanism.
But, i assume that i need to reauthorize my 1.8 Core every few weeks. I don’t mind that, it’s less hassle than the weekly updates on the main Core…
Whilst I would prefer the ability to use Roon without internet access, mainly in the event of internet outage rather than me taking my core to a location without internet access, it’s now apparent that this isn’t going to happen as Roon moves forwards.
Danny, and others, have made it clear that a cloud based approach is the way forwards and I think for good reason. One of the constant criticism of Roon (on this forum) is that it is very hardware dependent. Everybody’s hardware set up is different and this causes a huge problem for Roon. How many times have we read “can’t use Qobuz/Tidal on Roon but can on their native apps…”? It’s clear that Roon wants to bypass some of these problems by moving things to the cloud. This allows a far great uniformity of provision and access.
It’s clear that Roon has foreseen that this, along with the issue of no longer supporting older hardware, will cause significant problems for some - hence the provision of 1.8 Legacy. 1.8 Legacy provides a solution for those users who don’t want mobile access, but do want to use Roon offline. It also provides a solution for those who dread “update time”!
Now, the big issue is how long Roon will support 1.8 Legacy. This clearly depends on the number of Legacy users (see this post). If you want to use Roon as it is then, the more people that download and use Legacy, the more likely it is to be supported further into the future. But, as with all things Roon, Roon provide and support what they want to provide and support - it has ever been thus!
Could Roon team give an idea of the proportion of their customers with a local library that they care for ? I assume that proportion gives a good estimation of the percentage of Roon customers willing to remain able to access it even if Internet should drop. Plus, these customers are likely their earlier ones and would remain potentially quite faithful, provided that their owner access to playing « their local music » via Roon is respected. And lifetime subscribers…
I have a local library (exclusively from the end of this month as I say goodbye to Qobuz) but I’m connected to the internet for the vast majority of the time. Outages tend to be short, but sometimes last several hours. I’ve had one that lasted a week or so (I think - it was a while ago!). For me, and I suspect for many others who would have preferred to keep offline access, it’s not a total deal breaker. I’ll keep with 1.8 Legacy whilst it’s supported (or until I have a use for ARC) and then move to 2.0 with contingency plans.
At the end of the day all local library users need to weigh up what Roon provides against what other services provide. Audrivana, JRiver etc. - they don’t cut it for me. One thing is certain, offline access post-2.0 is not coming back.
Solely from my point of view the ‘always on’ connection isn’t an issue, as our broadband is very reliable indeed, but I can fully understand how it must be for those with a less reliable connection.
I use a Linn KDS and the music on the ROCK NUC is backed up to a variety of places, including an always on HP MicroServer which is used for PLEX amongst other things, so I have Linn’s KazooServer installed there and in the very unlikely instance of broadband failure I can simply use that alongside the Linn app on my phone, for local files.
I understand the reasoning behind Roon’s move in this direction but I think they’ve done the right thing in offering the 1.8 legacy version to those who don’t like the ‘always on’ part of 2.0.
What you’re seeing in this thread is that many might not agree as to just how good that reason for continuous internet connectivity might be. As far as I can tell, there is nothing particularly differentiating about Roon as a front end for streaming music services. What made Roon unique was the quality of their metadata management and the corresponding interface for your locally stored music. Yes, people definitely used Tidal and Qobuz within Roon (and thus had challenges) because it is admittedly nice to have a common interface to all of one’s music options, both streaming and local, but are people really paying for Roon if they only stream? My impression was that streaming service use was an adjunct to their core focus on managing one’s local music library.
If one only streams, then I agree that required continuous internet access is not an issue. It makes perfect sense. But local music management was Roon’s raison d’etre.
I really do understand the appeal of the cloud from a development perspective, because it can make many things easier, especially with as much as the tools, APIs, etc. have matured in the last 10 years. But you still need to evaluate if it’s actually better across all (or at least most) user use cases. When a product is inherently local in it’s core focus, then moving those core functions to the cloud may not make sense even if it’s easier or better in some areas. I’m not buying a smart lock for my house that requires continuous internet access no matter how good my internet connection might be or how impressive some of it’s other features might be. It’s inherently a local device and I want local control at all times. By all means, augment that core local function via cloud services and trumpet it from the roof tops, but don’t lose sight of your core focus in the process.
I’m not saying that I fully accept/understand/support what’s happening. What I am saying is that it now appears to be a done deal.
I agree. I love Roon’s rich metadata. However if I were only streaming I wouldn’t need Roon. Tidal, Apple Music etc can provide much of the experience – albeit diminished.
DSP and multiple endpoints are also important to me. I too am remaining on 1.8 Legacy waiting to see what happens but I doubt I’ll abandon Roon. I looked at JRiver– functional but with a GUI that looks like it was developed in the '90s and Audirvana which is slick but lacking the metadata and to my ears the SQ and DSP were not on a par with Roon.
Why is everyone falling for the nonsense from Roon about “we need to improve search and that requires the cloud”?
Building excellent cloud search has absolutely no bearing on the ability of Roon to have a simple offline mode with no search. Is everyone so gullible here?
Roon has put in a kill switch for offline use and has yet to offer a legitimate explanation. They only offer obfuscation, diversion, and derision.
The thing about startups is that founders are frequently ousted by their boards because they are unfit to manage and lead. It happens regularly.
Every person on this forum has been the victim of derogatory and unprofessional remarks by Roon. Is their Board of Directors thrilled about that when their business model relies on sustaining monthly payments?
Their revenue could collapse within weeks when more and more of their customers realize what’s going on, how they are abused, and how the aggressive behavior to throttle discussion is backfiring into a public relations disaster.
Do they think people who use this forum won’t speak out elsewhere, beyond their control?
Nobody’s falling for anything. Roon have always made the software that Roon wants to make. This model has allowed them to develop an interesting and appealing product. If Roon 2.0 results in “revenue… collapse within weeks” then they’ll have to think again. I very much doubt that this will happen.
No discussion has been throttled. If it had then why would this thread still exist? Everybody is free to make their consumer choices based upon what Roon is offering. If you (or I) like it, we stick around. If you (or I) don’t like it, we look elsewhere.
If you have a lifetime subscription, looking away won’t make much difference in terms of Roon’s revenue. It may actually help a little in terms of operating costs.
That explanation is weak but there’s a secondary motivation here. Moving processing requirements to cloud-based services in future to reduce the barrier to new customers who may have neither the $ or technical expertise to manage a home server, even one as simple as a Nucleus. The support forum is rife with complaints and requests for assistance from customers who aren’t familiar with routers, IP addresses or the necessities of running a home network.
In future Roon should be as easy to use and simple as turning on a radio or other home appliance.
I would be grateful if you didn’t speak for me Charles, you don’t know me, or how I think or feel.
I looked at the update and choose to install it, I had a small stumble but was able to configure the system to my needs; now I am happy with the outcome, and accepting of the changes that have been made.
Neat, more motivation to find an alternative to Roon. Im getting pretty sick of every time theres a major update we, as users, are told to suck eggs.
How hard is it to retain basic offline functionality? Actually, i really dont care how hard it is. Its pretty basic. Local playback should always work whether theres an active internet connection or not.
Users should be telling YOU to suck eggs, not the other way around.
Its unfortunate for the folks who purchased lifetime Roon without knowing what theyre actually ending up with.
Im glad i have the option to pack up and take my money with me. Ive got a hurricane on the way and power will more than likely be back up before internet.
May very well be canceling my subscription depending on how inconvenienced i am.
The LUMIN app paired with minimserver works almost as good as Roon with HQPlayer and is free or significantly cheaper if you buy a minim license.
I’ll throw in my two cents about being extremely disappointed in this change as well. There is absolutely no reason you can’t turn off search, or enable an offline (inferior if it needs to be) search mode for when there is no internet connection. As a subscriber of a $125/yr piece of software, it’s incredibly disheartening to see the way the company is speaking to its user base here. The core functionality of the software is managing local music libraries, managing endpoints, applying DSP if desired, and outputting important information about the chain, bitrates, formats etc. NONE of which requires internet access. A very nice addition when you ARE connected to the internet is streaming music and rich metadata, but neither of this is core to the base functionality of the software.
I’m seriously going to have to reconsider my subscription. Not so much because this is a dealbreaker for my own use case, but more because it’s obvious by the tone deaf answers here to legitimate user feedback, that the company doesn’t care for the needs and opinions of its client base.
I bought a phone that is software upgradeable. The company that makes it has continuously make improvements, from 2G, 3G through 4G generations. I can use the phone to communicate anywhere on the 2G, 3G and 4G networks.
Last week, the company who makes the phone released firmware version 2.0 saying that this is the future and the phone would be able to run 5G. Apparently, the phone only works with 5G. If you go to areas that don’t have 5G coverage your phone won’t work at all.
This Sunday morning, I am driving in the woods just outside my neighbourhood, an area that don’t have a 5G signal and my car breaks down. I need to contact someone for help. I see clearly on my phone screen that 4G, 3G and 2G signals are available and very strong. But, still I cannot make a call and or even text a message to anybody because my phone now only works on 5G.