Just a curious story: a friend of mine once came in with Schiit Yggdrassil. Imagine, this beautiful expensive device had internal USB transport that powered by… USB chain! So its SQ may depend somehow on the source chain’s power quality…
Why I’m saying this: you’re comparing Roon and A+ on a completely different hardware. Just to clarify: did you try to run Roon Server on a MBP?
Well, if one is getting into audio, one is going to see a lot of this. It’s the nature of the beast.
I understand the conundrum the views can put in a naïve reader’s head, but at the end of the day they don’t really have any bad choices sound-wise. These differences are almost always small (unless there are hardware problems), regardless of how they are described.
When I hear phrases like “greater palpability”, “shines a brighter inner light”, ‘lifts a veil’, I say to myself, “Yeah, I hear you, pretty small differences”.
When I read those phrases, I say to myself: expectation bias.
I guess it was only a matter of time before someone trotted out the objectivist yearning for a KPI that tells them when music sounds more pleasant or satisfying. We can all understand how helpful that would be, for many people.
I used to run my Roon core on my MBP, before the Sonic Transporter. The SQ did not deteriorate when I switched to the ST - on the contrary, it was perhaps marginally better.
Yes hear hear!
With recording , mastering differences it’s always a tough call
How many recordings have that “tingle factor”
I have 3,024 so far. Essentially all hearted tracks in my library.
I trialled A+ 3.5 and Roon simultaneously through identical systems - new Mac Mini and Genelec monitors/sub and ACS Emotion custom IEMS. A+ slightly more depth and detail retrieval, maybe a touch less warmth and musicality. I went for Roon because of the UI and bought a Nucleus+. Suddenly Roon was comparable, lowering the noise floor and adding a little more detail and attack, but without losing musicality.
Now Nuc+ feeds Yggdrasil and Ragnarok 2 in what feels like end game to me. At least for now 
Sounds like my ideal setup. Have you posted photos in Showing (off) your Roon setup - description and photos ?
I am Mac based and have owned nearly all of the major Mac audiophile software programs. Here are my rankings:
For Sound Quality:
For Ease of Use:
#1) Roon
#2) Roon w/ HQPlayer
#15) Audirvana 3.5
#16) Amarra Luxe
#4,275) HQPlayer
I do think Roon is overpriced, by a lot. But because of a dearth of competition on the ease of use front, I’m satisfied with the Roon/ HQPlayer duo that yields perhaps the best combination of SQ and ease of use in the entire world, including better than many very expensive servers.
Not yet but I’ll get right on it
1 and 2 are going to be the same…
You’d think so, but I’ve not found this to be the case. And another friend who’s quite well known in the audiophile hardware manufacturing end of things agrees. In our opinion, Roon puts on a slight veil to the HQPlayer output. I can’t explain why. Its not night and day, but its there. However, it not worth dealing with HQP’s stone aged UI for the slight improvement in SQ…
Hi John
Do you have both Roon and HQP running on same server and direct USB cable connected to USB DAC?
Or are you using a HQP NAA ?
I would like @jussi_laako to chime in…
But, I don’t see how this possible. No matter which way HQPlayer gets the track, it is sending the EXACT same information to the NAA. How can Roon add a veil to HQPlayer? Or are you having Roon do something to the track before it gets to HQPlayer? I have Roon doing nothing to the track.
Well, if they are using Roon/HQPlayer that way, that can get a bump in SQ just by using a quality NAA instead of a noisy general purpose computer.
Can you explain how HQPlayer Client is stone aged UI? It is very modern one, by all means.
@John John I’m interested in your HQP / Roon combo, and have wondered if this might provide the best of both worlds - A+ sound quality with Roon user friendliness. Looks like you find this is true, in your experience
However I’m guessing you’re an upsampling / filtration fan? I didn’t like the A+ Sox filter when I tried it some time ago. Might give it another shot with A+ 3.5. But I’ve always come back to a preference for using no filters or upsampling. How much SQ benefit would HQP contribute if used in this way? I wouldn’t expect much or any advantage over basic Roon.
I have a fairly basic setup. Roon Core and HQPlayer 4 Desktop on my 2013 MacBook Pro —> Curious Link into a W4S RUR (recovery) —> Uptone Audio USPCB A>B Adapter (set to data only) —> Matrix Audio X-SPDIF 2 (converts to I2S) —> AQ Mocha HDMI —> DirectStream Junior DAC, etc.
I have thus far eschewed network audio based on the guidance of Paul McGowan and Ted Smith, the creators of my DAC.
My DAC upsamples everything to 20X DSD, or DSD 1024. I’m not bound to any particular theory, I just go by what sounds best to me. I have tried Roon by itself, both via USB and via the Bridge 2 network card. And I’ve tried it with HQP. Prefer HQP in the mix. I’ve tried HQP with and without upsampling/ filters, and prefer what HQP does to the sound with upsampling. Ted Smith, the designer of PS Audio’s DACs recommended that I keep PCM as PCM, and DSD as DSD. And to upsample PCM to 352 in HQP before passing it on (the max for my DAC). My MacBook can’t handle anything more than DSD 64, so I’m not able to try higher versions, but my DAC is limited to DSD 128, by purposeful design. Of my 400 DSD albums, only a few or DSD 128 anyway. If I want to play those, I do them through Roon alone with no issues.
All of this can be DAC specific, so YMMV. But to me, and to a number of others, HQPlayer increases richness, body, detail and soundstage over Roon alone - the difference is readily apparent. I do cheat sometimes and use Roon’s EQ because its easier than HQP’s convolution engine.
HQP has a free trial. It is not a user friendly piece of software and can be difficult to get started with, and the manual, God Bless Jussi, is written poorly. But now that I figured it out, its easy to use.