· Just updated my Weiss DAC502 MK2 to firmware 2.8.1 and started testing the new direct Qobuz playback support.
I normally use Qobuz through Roon, but after multiple comparisons I’m now quite sure I hear a difference.
Direct Qobuz playback to the Weiss sounds more open, spacious and natural in my system compared to Qobuz through Roon. The presentation feels a bit more transparent here.
The differences are not huge, but they are definitely noticeable to me, and at the moment I actually prefer Qobuz direct over Roon.
Is there something I can do about this? Thank you in advance
Tell us about your home network
· I don’t believe this is related to a network issue, since both playback methods use the same network path and hardware.
What I’m hearing is a subtle sonic difference between:
* Qobuz via Roon RAAT and * direct Qobuz playback to the Weiss DAC502 MK2 after firmware 2.8.1
Direct Qobuz playback sounds slightly more open and spacious in my setup.
My network setup is stable and simple:
* fiber connection to the LHY Audio SW-6 SFP switch * Ethernet cable from the switch to the Weiss DAC502 MK2 * no VPN * no mesh/extenders involved
I’m mainly curious whether there are any technical differences in the playback pipeline between native Qobuz playback and RAAT that could explain what some users may be hearing.
The key thing to understand is that both paths — Qobuz via Roon (RAAT) and the Weiss’s new native Qobuz client, are just transporting the same FLAC stream from Qobuz’s servers. If neither path alters the data, the actual PCM samples arriving at the DAC chip are bit-for-bit identical, and a DAC like the DAC502 reclocks everything to its own internal clock anyway. In that scenario there’s no technical mechanism left for the analog output to differ. So the interesting question is whether something in one path is actually changing the bits, or whether the difference is on the perception side.
Things that genuinely can make Roon sound different (and are worth checking first)
Signal Path. In Roon, click the Signal Path indicator during playback. It should read fully “Lossless”. If it shows “Enhanced/High Quality”, something is processing the stream.
Volume Leveling / headroom management. If Roon’s volume leveling or any headroom adjustment is on, it applies gain and the output is no longer bit-perfect. This is the single most common cause of “Roon sounds different.” Turn it off for the comparison.
Any DSP, upsampling, or crossfeed in the active zone, disable all of it.
Volume method. Make sure Roon is set to fixed/100% digital (or that the Weiss is handling volume), not attenuating digitally.
If all of that is clean and Signal Path is lossless, then the two streams are identical, and the likely explanations are perceptual
Level matching. Even a 0.2–0.5 dB difference is reliably heard as “more open and spacious.” Native and RAAT paths can land at slightly different output levels.
Non-instant, sighted A/B. Auditory memory is only a few seconds, and knowing which source is playing strongly biases perception, especially toward a brand-new feature you’re curious about.
So the honest answer to “is there a technical difference in the pipeline that explains this”: if both are confirmed bit-perfect, no, and the Weiss’s jitter rejection makes the transport essentially irrelevant. The first move is to verify Roon’s Signal Path is lossless with volume leveling off; that resolves the large majority of these cases.
Edit: further to this I can with a good amount of first hand knowledge say that a proprietary protocol like RAAT when compared to UPnP/DLNA makes no difference.
I recently built my own music streaming software including my own proprietary protocol and my own bridge. Again, no difference in what I heard at the speakers.
One important part of the certification process is ensuring Parity between RAAT and other network-based input options. Between the certification program and the Roon Ready license agreement, we make sure that users do not receive a worse experience when using a device via RAAT than they would using other network-based input mechanisms. This requirement applies both at the time of certification and on an ongoing basis.
There are many dimensions to maintaining Parity. We obviously don’t allow decisions that hurt the sound quality of the product when combined with Roon, but we also work to make sure that users have equal access to capabilities like Software Volume controls, Tone Control, and DSP features in an endpoint device.
That said, the native capabilities of the device don’t always match the capabilities exposed by other network input options. There are devices out there, for example, that accept 384kHz or DSD files when acting as media servers, but internally play those files at 192kHz after downsampling or DSD->PCM conversion. These situations are most common in systems that do not have their own “core”, where endpoint devices are doing double-duty as playback hardware and media servers.
In Roon’s architecture, we prefer to perform compatibility-oriented format conversions in the server rather than performing them in endpoint firmware. In the end, this decision is made jointly by Roon and the Partner on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes conversions are moved from the device into Roon (since in most cases the Roon Server device has a much larger CPU and can perform higher-quality conversions), and sometimes device manufacturers elect to keep conversions where they are and reflect them appropriately in Roon’s Signal Path instead. Regardless of the situation, we never allow a device to pass certification if we believe that using it with Roon will result in a downgrade in sound quality.
I understand your point regarding bit-perfect playback, and I agree that if both paths ultimately deliver identical PCM samples to the DAC, then in theory the analog output should also be identical.
What I do find interesting though is that the playback chain itself is not exactly the same.
With Roon:
Qobuz sends FLAC to Roon.
Roon decodes/unpacks FLAC → PCM.
Roon sends PCM over RAAT to the Weiss DAC502 MK2.
With direct Qobuz playback:
Qobuz sends FLAC directly to the Weiss
The Weiss itself decodes/unpacks FLAC → PCM internall
The Weiss DAC handles the entire playback chain internally
So while the resulting PCM data may theoretically be identical, the decoding stage, buffering, software stack and transport pipeline are different.
I’m not claiming this proves there must be an audible difference, only that the signal path is not literally identical from end to end.
In my setup, after repeated listening, direct Qobuz playback still sounds slightly more open and spacious to me compared to playback through Roon RAAT.
Looking at the 502 specifications (curiosity gets the better of me sometimes… ) there is a lot of very user-configurable DSP available. You need to be sure that such internal DSP is applied (or not) identically to both streams. The defaults might be different.
Roon (RAAT): FLAC is decoded to raw PCM on the Roon Core, and that raw PCM stream is clocked over the network to the Weiss endpoint.
Native Qobuz: The Weiss DAC pulls the FLAC stream directly, unpacks it to PCM using its internal processing power, and routes it to the DAC stage.
From Roon’s perspective, the goal of RAAT is to be entirely transparent. By moving the heavy lifting (like unpacking FLAC files or managing the play queue) off the endpoint and onto the Roon Core, RAAT allows the endpoint to simply receive an uncompressed audio stream and focus entirely on clocking and D/A conversion.
As @MusicD and @AndyR noted, the most common reason for a perceived difference is usually a configuration mismatch. Please double-check the following in Roon just to be absolutely certain:
Signal Path: Click the glowing star during playback and ensure it says “Lossless” with no DSP, Volume Leveling, or Sample Rate Conversion applied.
Device Setup: In Roon’s Audio settings for the Weiss, ensure the “Volume Control Mode” is set identically to how you use it via the native app (e.g., Fixed Volume or Device Volume).
If Roon is passing a bit-perfect, unaltered PCM stream to the Weiss, then RAAT has fulfilled its purpose. Any sonic differences beyond that point—whether due to how the Weiss handles network interrupts, how its internal processor manages FLAC decoding vs. raw PCM buffering, or how its DSP engines are mapped to different inputs—are dictated by the endpoint’s firmware.
It is great that you have reached out to Weiss Engineering! They will know exactly how their internal routing and clocking architecture treats a RAAT input versus their native Qobuz client. We look forward to hearing what they say!
For the past month, I’ve had Qobuz disconnected from Roon. I have a PS Audio DirectStream Mk1 DAC (actually two of them, one for the main rig and one for my headphone setup). On my main rig, I use a PS Audio AirLens for the streamer and on the headphone setup, I my MK1 has the network card, which is basically an AirLens on an expansion card).
Last Saturday, I chose to use Qobuz Connect to listen to a Heart, Dreamboat Annie. I listened to about half of the first song and became quite frustrated at how flat it was and switched over to a vinyl LP of the album and everything changed completely for the better in every way imaginable.
Just my personal experience.
Vinyl and digital releases are never the same master. This is a completely different discussion than comparing the same digital release through two different transport methods.
I’m glad you’ve found a setup and playback method that you enjoy. Vinyl can absolutely sound wonderful, and I completely understand why many people prefer it for certain albums and recordings.
One thing I’ve learned over the years is that there are so many variables involved in audio playback. Different DACs, streamers, amplifiers, speakers, headphones, network setups, software implementations, and even system synergy can all influence the final result.
Because of that, two listeners can have very different experiences with what appears to be the same source material. What works exceptionally well in one system may not necessarily produce the same result in another.
In my case, I’m simply trying to understand why I seem to prefer direct Qobuz playback over Qobuz through Roon on my Weiss DAC502 MK2. It’s an interesting technical discussion, and I’m curious to see what Weiss discovers during their investigation.
In the meantime, the most important thing is enjoying the music, whatever path gets us there.
I’ve found exactly the same thing as the OP … for years now. IMO, JPlay App, Qobuz, the Linn app all sound better than Roon but I’ve given up trying to pin it down. The only general point I can make is that it seems to be additional network/CPU activity that drives a reduction in SQ. To be fair to Roon, we are talking (again IMO) about the last 10%, and I find myself using Roon more than the other apps because of the additional features (lyrics and great search, linking of artists and musicians primarily in my case) enhance the whole listening experience for me. It’s only occasionally that I fire up one of the other apps…