That is looking at Roon potential performance from the wrong end of the telescope so to speak. Roon is software. Mac, Windows, Linux and ROCK server softwares all preceded Nucleus. It is the performance of the software that is the issue, not the performance of a Nucleus, which is only a subset of relatively old hardware running Roon software.
Roon have always said that you need something far more powerful than a standard Nucleus if you have a ‘large’ library, so it is wrong to use Nucleus performance as some sort of acceptable limit on the potential performance of the software.
Certainly you got me wrong. I suggested to from roon´s side set and communicate a general maximum capacity for roon as a software similar to how Nucleus has been labelled as a limited hardware solution. Take the 250k tracks they have been using in the past, or calculate a more conservative one with current version, say 200 or 150k.
But the limit in terms of tracks, albums or whatever was kind of vague and hidden in the FAQ, so not really part of the product description. Yes they have written they do not test south of 250k tracks but hinting it runs well with sufficient CPU power and RAM. Maybe that’s obsolete since so many operations are cloud-heavy and connection-reliant?
It is just a matter of communication and people being aware that they are operating ´out of warranty comfort zone´. They will continue doing it but it would not lead to this unpleasant atmosphere we have now.
It is a bit like renting an SUV in a touristic spot like Portugal or Greece. ´No off-roading!´ you read it several times in the contract and sign it. Drive it on seriously rough terrain to a rocky beach thinking you are the only one - voila, you see hundreds of fellow Hertz or Sixt cars parked there. But if you scratch it, you pay. Clear rules.
1 Like