I’m not sure this is possible and there’s no need. RoonServer is a subset of Roon, with no control app. If you tried to run both on the same machine that’s 2 cores. They’d no doubt clash on internet ports and resources like the database. You’d also need a second license as it’s per running core. You only need one or the other depending on your desire to run a screen and control app on your core.
This is not correct - it is perfectly possible to run both the full Roon package and Roon Server on the same machine (PC or MAC). You’re then just not using the Roon Core component of the full Roon package.
Ah, my misunderstanding. I need to dust off the old Mac and have a play. I’m curious as to why you’d do it unless the full Roon package isn’t quite what I think it is. I see it as RoonServer plus control. Apologies for adding to any confusion.
It is, but there’s no need to use the full package to create a separate core. I’ve been running this configuration for a couple of years now on a 2012 Macbook Pro. I’m not sure there are any huge audio/SQ benefits, but it’s definitely doable.
I’d just been reading more carefully and can see the use case now. The full Roon app is something of a closed book for me. I’m Linux only so have naturally gone down the server and remote app route. Thanks for the info.
Thanks. I thought Roon Server would start up faster. But that depends on the size of the library.
I got I big library (19.000 albums) and it takes several minutes to start up Roon (and Roon Server with the same size library). The only advantage is that I can use Roon Server when I use Tidal only!!
That makes start up quicker and CPU/ memory usage much lower.
I’ve got 8 GB RAM and Intel I5 processor.
Will 8 GB of extra RAM make starting up Roon faster?