Roon v Audirvana

Audirvana doesn’t scrobble despite many of their users requesting it. I would never have discovered Roon if they had scrobbled. But I’m so glad it forced my search, Roon not only scrobbles, it’s just better in almost every way.

1 Like

I agree louder music by itself does not sound better.

I did using AirPlay from my Mac.
The Linn is Msjik DS.Not top of the game.I use it with an external dac weiss.

1 Like

This is all subjective, but in my opinion there is no comparison between Audirvana and Roon, IMO, Roon is in a league of its own.

Audirvana uPnP was flaky when I tried the new version release.
I got static breakup on uPnP regularly. Roon works flawlessly via RAAT.

Roon is way ahead in user-ability, and design.

Audirvana was flaky and had stability issues.
Audirvana also launched in a terrible state, with no IOS app. FAIL.
When the IOS app launched, it would regularly become non responsive.

When I compared the two software’s for sound quality, I ensured both PC’s were connected using the same method, I.e. USB. Both sources sounded identical to me, when connected identically.

On a side note: I did a number of bit perfect tests using my RME ADI 2 dac fs, and Audirvana failed the 24bit test, at the time of testing in my system. In comparison Roon passed every bit perfect test no issue.

Here is the thread I started: RME ADI 2 Bit test on 24 bit WAV files fails - #47 by bitracer - USB DAC - Audirvana

1 Like

I use a Cambridge Audio CXN V1 , so not Roon Ready but DLNA/UPnP

I thought Audirvana Studio looked like a decent bet. Being a 3.5 license holder I got a 6 week demo.

During that 6 weeks I didn’t get it to play a single track. The only way was to upsample to 192 , hardly bit perfect.

Still to this day I cannot use AS as is , yes I can upsample but I don’t wish to.

The CXN is hardly an obscure streamer , having won countless awards as best stream in its price range. Alas it goes back into moth balls with an occasional outing with jriver

I would not recommend AS, even the navigation is poor.

Roon has nothing to worry about :smiling_imp::smiling_imp:

PS the AS sounded louder in my kit as well, when “turned down” I couldn’t tell the difference between AS, Roon or JRiver.

1 Like

On a slightly seperate note, and this may be of interest to you especially if maintaining native sampling rates and bit depth is important to you.

My understanding is the CXNv2 up samples everything internally to 32bit 384Khz….No matter what the player is feed.

There’s many links on the net about this, a few on roon forum too.

So no matter what the unit is feed, it resamples internally. But this doesn’t address the upnp issue you describe.

Yes the upsampling is a long standing feature of CA DAC’s. maybe 10 years +

The digital inputs however can be bypassed. eg a Digital Co-Ax input feeding a Co-Ax output isn’t upsampled.

Its only those signals that are about to be “DAC converted to analogue” are up-sampled.

I use the CXN with an ethernet input and Co-Ax output to my headphone amp , that passes un adjusted so it a “pure streamer” digital in digital out . I feed the 2 phone analogue outputs to a soundbar as well.

Yep exactly.

Plenty of independent tests have shown quite conclusively that there is no audible difference between one bit perfect software player and a other.

My own experience trying audirvana, I tunes with remote and roon backs this up.

I literally can’t take seriously any comment that starts with “x vs x software player, which sounds better”

I’m voting for Roon here because I have not yet been banned from its discussion forum. Audirvana, however, is a different and tragicomic story.

3 Likes

Can you share a link to one such study? Thanks in advance.

1 Like

Yea I’ll hunt out the one I liked tomorrow. Too late and too many ales to bother tonight :slight_smile:

Here for starters.

Absolutely nothing to suggest there’s the slightest audible difference between this bunch of software players. But then it’s hard to find differences that don’t exist.

3 Likes

Well, I think Danny Richie (of GR Research) would call this a “flat earther” because they didn’t listen and only took measurements. :smile:

I only skimmed it but it seems like a very complete test. I’d be interested if the results could be reproduced across different DACs. The DAC used has a fairly high rejection of being influenced by what it’s plugged into. Other DACs may not show same results. Good read either way.

But, one thing it does show… If someone hears a difference between Roon and another software you can “fix” it. It’s not something Roon is doing.

Yeah his musings on interconnects makes me chuckle too.

Identical frequency response on every single one of them. It marvels me in this day and age that people still think cables are matters of subjective opinion, and that they can sound different. They don’t, neither do digital cables, network cables and software players.

1 Like

TBH I did notice a significant difference in speaker cable once. In the days I owned Quad 57s and NVA amps. Chucking what I later learned was a high capacitance cable in the mix caused a few sparks with the volume up !
Other than that, naff all difference.

1 Like

Probably the volume not the cable

Forget the volume - that’s just when sparks began to fly, literally. Other than that nothing.

On Alpha Audio, A Dutch HiFi site, Audirvana was the clear winner in a contest this weekend! You can watch the video on their site.

1 Like

If they plugged Core into DAC they tested Roon incorrectly.

If you’re going to plug a computer into a DAC then I’ve not found Roon to sound great. Get a streamer / digital transport and use RAAT. These comparisons of plugging server into DAC is counter to the recommended Roon Labs reference set-up and therefore, I find, are invalid tests.

1 Like