RoonServer over Roon core on MacMini

I have a MacMini which has the core on it, just wondering if there is any advantage to switching it over to run RoonServer instead? The mini is just used as a music server attached to my dac and tv (just for maintenance if it needs), now that I have an iPad Air 2 I don’t need the visuals. Does SQ improve with RoonServer instead of the full blown core version or should I leave it as is… Any advice would be great.

Edit: I forgot to mention I also have an iMac in my home office that is set up with Roon remote.

Roon and RoonServer are the same except for the graphics. I think the point was to accommodate those users who wanted to create a headless server. So no sonic improvement. I personally love having a Roon machine plugged into the TV so that everyone can see the graphics and read the information.

1 Like

Why do people keep saying that Roon has a “sound”, or signal quality ?

Roon doesn’t have a sound. Roon pulls & pushes data. It has no sonic signature.

1 Like

I’m sorry but I disagree with you. On my MacMini I have JRiver, Audirvana and Roon and to some extent they all have slightly different SQ, some more than others. JRiver on Mac is flat and sterile sounding compared to A+ and Roon.

A+ just released their best sounding version 2.2.2, but I think the library management end is still a work in progress and needs refinement.

It’s alright if to you all players sound the same, but please I don’t want to get into a player is a player, bits are bits all sound the same debate…it’s tiring IMO.

[quote=“Mystic, post:4, topic:3793”]
It’s alright if to you all players sound the same, but please I don’t want to get into a player is a player, bits are bits all sound the same debate…it’s tiring IMO.
[/quote]As is the SQ debate and obsession with which software sounds best. I wonder how many pundits would be able to pick one from the other in a properly constituted blind test.

1 Like

Who cares, but if you had a blind test, yes I think you would hear a difference between players… I originally asked if there was a benefit of Server over Core on my mini not to talk on this very tired endless debate which never ends good for anybody…so please don’t try to start it up here, this was a simple question I asked.

The answer to your simple question depends on the degree to which you’re susceptible to audio foo. Following the golden eared audiophile foo line of thinking on the face of it headless would have to sound better as there’s no gui processing going on making for less electrical interference.

I ended up trying RoonServer on the mini and notice no difference, but I kind of like to simple roon in the menu bar. Now that I have an iPad no need to have the TV on with mouse and keyboard on the coffee table.

To your original post, I came across this article last month I thought was interesting and my thoughts between the 2 players. http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/08/a-stand-off-down-under-puremusic-vs-jriver-vs-audirvana/

Just thought you’d be interested in reading, not meant to be a rebuttable or anything like that.

There is a school of thought that the less processing done by the computer which feeds your DAC, the better the SQ. This is the philosophy behind the control computer/audio computer of JRiver, the minimal configuration network device in HQP, Fidelizer, Audiophile Optimiser etc etc. There are other considerations, such as noise through galvanic connections, but the less processing the better is a common issue.

By doing away with the gui, RoonServer makes it possible to strip away a lot of the operating system, processes, devices, threads etc associated with that graphic support. The result is greater scope to reduce the processing on the core machine.

So while a change to RoonServer might not make any discernible difference to SQ per se, it can enable or assist with other optimisations or architectures which people have said do make a difference. And sometimes a very substantial difference. See this post by Chris from Computer Audiophile where he describes a fully AO treated JRiver installation as the best digital playback he’d ever heard. Period. That’s a big claim.

All relevant mostly to USB connected devices I would say. Use of networked devices like the existing Meridian zones and future RoonSpeaker enabled zones will mitigate much of the noisy PC/Mac issues.

Yes. USB does seem to be the connection-de-jour. Possibly because it supports DSD. I do like the sound of DSD, but I can’t listen to a collection of audio show demo tracks every night.

[quote=“Mystic, post:8, topic:3793, full:true”]
…To your original post, I came across this article last month I thought was interesting and my thoughts between the 2 players. http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2015/08/a-stand-off-down-under-puremusic-vs-jriver-vs-audirvana/ …[/quote]

[quote=“andybob, post:9, topic:3793, full:true”]
There is a school of thought that the less processing done by the computer which feeds your DAC, the better the SQ. This is the philosophy behind the control computer/audio computer of JRiver, the minimal configuration network device in HQP, Fidelizer, Audiophile Optimiser etc etc. There are other considerations, such as noise through galvanic connections, but the less processing the better is a common issue…

…See this post by Chris from Computer Audiophile where he describes a fully AO treated JRiver installation as the best digital playback he’d ever heard. Period. That’s a big claim…[/quote]
But these programmes filter / up-sample / down-sample / convert / modulate / etc - the data, that’s fundamentally the reason for their existence - their MOI - unless you set them to a mode where there’s absolutely no data modification whatsoever being applied.
But in that case, there’s no modification being applied = by definition there’s no sonic signature / difference.

If you do modify the original source file (from your storage - whatever / wherever / however it’s stored) while it’s in-transit, which is what most of these programmes do, then you’re not comparing like-for-like.

If you are “employing” these programmes then you’ve usually already consciously chosen to modify the signal - which is of course fine - that’s up to you !

If your DAC or Amp is susceptible to RFI / EMI, or your signal-chain is, then it’s not well-designed. Don’t blame or attribute the software for that.

Anyway, to answer the original question, the headless “Server” version of Roon won’t have any difference sonically to the non-headless version. If you notice a difference, then it’s a problem with your hardware, not the software.

Perhaps, if preferred, the diverging part of this discussion could be continued in the A better sound from Roon thread - where - incidentally - the answer is also Roon does not have a sound ! :wink:

Great. You just got my thinking, I don’t really need to keep this subscription which amounts to $150 a year with exchange rate, if all players are the exact same. Goodbye Roon next May, I guess :slight_smile:

There’s a lot more to Roon than pure AQ and you know it … :wink:

1 Like

DSD is also OK over networks. Even Meridian will be supporting this in some form soon.
I find it is far easier to feed network zones with just an Ethernet cable vs adding extra devices to create a local USB link.

Yes I know @Carl , I was only half joking… I love the Roon interface.

But if all players are AQ equal and I already have perfectly groomed metadata library and the multiple albums I have that get confused with others in Roon’s database don’t seem to get corrected even after several posts from various people about the same album results they have, I do have some (not big) concerns that these corrections will ever happen.

Does SQ improve with RoonServer instead of the full blown core version or should I leave it as is… Any advice would be great.

From a digital audio perspective the bits are the same in the two versions.

From an analog perspective, computers emit more EM/RF noise when they’re working harder. Turning off the UI takes a load off of your machine. It will use less RAM, not spin up the GPU at all, and be less likely to trigger the fan (if you have one).

Also, the server version has a watchdog mechanism and auto-restarts in case of a crash or unresponsive server. Not that Roon ever crashes…but were it to do that…ever…it would be nice not to have to access a headless machine to kick it.

Basically: if I were running my Roon server in a headless configuration, I’d run RoonServer.

the multiple albums I have that get confused with others in Roon’s database don’t seem to get corrected…

The iOS port and 1.1 release took precedence, but now that those are behind us, work has begun on these issues. We do not intend to leave this stuff as-is forever.

Thanks @brian, your feedback is appreciated.

I would think hardcore audiophiles would say roonserver “sounds” better since there is less demand on the cpu.

Audiophiles, “hard core” and otherwise, are a very diverse group. I for one don’t think that Roon Server has a sound. I don’t think that A+ changes the sound when the filters are not engaged (I do like it with the filters on). I don’t want to debate it, but I’m tired of reading post claiming that we all agree that there are issues with the Roon “sound.” In my opinion, listening on a very high-end system, there are no differences between the bit perfect players I’ve tried, when no filters/upsampler is used. (I’m not saying that others are not entitled to their point of view on this “issue,” but I want to make sure that the other perspective is represented here.)

1 Like