[quote=“miguelito, post:414, topic:9534”]
I would hope is improved from the current version.
[/quote]what is wrong with the current version?
[quote=“miguelito, post:414, topic:9534”]
In my testing, I found that Roon sounded worse than Audirvana and that HQPlayer sounded better or about the same as Audirvana (with or without upsampling). Subtle diffs… And it could be old history, I have been a Roon user since July 2015.
Oh yes, Roon sounds bad. I listen to it all the time.
Oh darling… I think I was pretty clear in my response. I am not alone, btw.
Could you describe your setup?
In my experience software players mainly sound aittle different from each other, not better or worse. Once you have tweaked your system using one player wich for example sounds a bit lean another player will sound to dark and therefore shut-in with lower perceived resolution on that system. Tweak everything again around the new player and the old player wil sound shrill with higher perceived distortion and narrower soundstage. Stick with one, tweak your system around it and be happy
While I don’t doubt your findings and preferences in your setup and situation, it would be wrong to turn this into a general ‘Roon should improve the way it sounds’ blanket statement. Roon is fine and brutally honest in how it handles its output – there’s no magic dust to be sprinkled here. I find that Roon shines in a server (core) <> client (bridge) setup and would not use a generic PC with connected DAC for music output, but of course your perspective may vary.
1.3 will offer a host of DSP options, which you may or may not like. And if you prefer HQP: by all means, use it - the bridge to HQP was built this.
And please don’t darling me… We haven’t even kissed.
You guys need to get a room. In more ways than one.
My computer in particular where Roon core runs (specs above) just runs Roon core and HQPlayer. Or Audirvana when I use that. All non-fundamental processes aren’t running.
In my testing it sounds great, please don’t make it sound any different.
Seems you need to login to CA … no interest in registering, please copy and paste kit, setup etc. here.
mini (i7quad/2.6gHz/16gbRAM/120gbSSD/3tbFW/Uptone JS-2+MMK); Current playback chain:mini+Roon+HQPlayer>NAA>microRendu>Curious 20cm>DAC
Music Server Operating System:
macOS 10.12 (Sierra)
Preferred Digital Interface(s):
Digital to Analog Converter(s):
EmmLabs XDS1v2 CD/SACD player & DAC (MDAT2 firmware Nov2014)
Digital to Digital Converter:
microRendu (powered by Uptone UltraCap LPS-1, connected to mini’s Ethernet port)
Audio Note Kondo Ongaku
Avantgarde Duo Mezzo G2 on custom Symposium Super Plus platforms
microRendu>DAC: Curious 20cm>DAC
Network>microRendu: SOtM ISO-CAT6 ethernet filter
mini>DAC:Jitterbug>Vbus Isolator>Curious 80cm>RUR>Curious 20cm
Aries>DAC: DH Labs D-110 AES/EBU XLR
DAC>Amp: Kondo KSL-LPz
KimberKable Copper (XDS1)
Kondo KSL-ACz (Ongaku)
Custom solid copper (Avantgarde)
Goldmund (Uptone JS-2)
Custom solid copper power strip
Shunyata Venon Defender
iPad Air 2
Remote Control Apps:
Roon Remote (iOS)
Audirvana Remote (iOS)
Screens (remote desktop, iOS)
Lightning DS (iOS)
Miguelito: I’m with you but… it’s a lost battle: the prevailing school, here (but not just here), looks to be the “bits are bits and every bit perfect player can’t but sound the very same. if it doesn’t it either is not bit perfect or you are doing something in your system/setting”
I love Roon and I do find it sounds very good. Though, as Qobuz is my streaming service of election, lately I pretty often find myself using the Aries on its own. Not just for streaming but for my local files also and when I go back to using Roon… something very subtle is missing. Again: I’m fine with Roon, but I also believe it can do better
(Damien went through a very careful “tuning” of A+'s playback engine and the result was immediately clear to everyone. ask him, not me, what he did!)
so… can both “schools”, please, at least peacefully co-exhist?
RBM - isn’t the server (core) just a PC, and a client (bridge) just a DAC?
The core is either a PC/mac or a NAS. The bridge is either a PC/mac or a renderer (microRendu, Aries, etc).
Yeah that was my point really; RMB was suggesting that core/client was very different to pc/dac, but they seem to mean similar things.
Rather than pollute this thread with continuous “sound quality” discussion why not start a new thread about sound quality or even better a poll to see how many people are unhappy with Roon’s sound quality.
In the setup Rene is describing the client is not a DAC, it is a renderer (Raspberry Pi, microRendu, Aries) which receives Ethernet or WiFi and then sends (usually) USB to the DAC. This isolates the DAC from the noisy PC far more effectively than a PC/DAC connection.
Edit: As Daniel notes below there are specially built audio PC’s that can achieve excellent isolation. But it is often easier and more cost effective to interpose a renderer than track down and fix the various source of noise in a PC.
Yes – but in Roon philosophy the core is ideally not outputting audio, so all intensive processes (database, DSP, conversion, codec-to-LPCM) can be done on a powerful system without influencing audio processing, while the client (a networked RoonBridge) can be a low-power, low-noise device that has do to very little processing (SBC+RoonBridge+DAC or integrated as RoonReady device).
Let’s kindly ask one of the @moderators to split off this little detour to a separate thread so this one can stay on topic – if only for future reference.
I’m pretty sure that in order to assess this properly I’m going to have to swap amps with you. Five years should do it …