Only for a week a month tho right?
Since Roon has no âsound qualityâ to speak of other than the digital master you provide it and my Nucleus One is connected by USB to my McIntosh DA2 module which contains a quad balanced ESS 9238pro chip, known for being utterly neutral, thre whole âchainâ is 100.00% of whatever the mastering the digital file happens to be. Itâs not âgoodâ or âbadâ, its simply a perfect representation of every electron that was converted into digital to begin with.
Interesting you connect directly via USB with the nucleus one? Donât think Iâve done that, always thought the network was recommended as the USB implementation I have never read was substantial vs network engineering ?
They want to sell you their wares mate. Thatâs all.
Actually they donât want to sell me anything, mate. They know what I have and know and understand I am not in the market for ANY new hardware. As I say, they are friends.
Switching to HQPlayer has been a major jump in sound quality vs RAAT, even without upsampling in HQPlayer engaged. And even better with HQPlayer upsampling engaged. Highly recommended that those dissatisfied with native ROON sound should explore HQPlayer.
HQPlayer is an upsampling music player, not a network protocol or transport. It would make more sense comparing HQPlayer with the DAC (oversampling and delta-sigma modulation contained therein.)
But, generally, is is necessary to return to the start of this topic without adding anything new to the discussion?
HQPlayer replaces RAAT with NAA, which is indeed a network transport/protocol. And you can test HQPlayer without upsampling active (eg native stream) which gives a direct comparison with ROON of RAAT vs non-RAAT. You can do similar test with LMS too.
Not quite.
NAA stands for Network Audio Adapter.
But it does indeed use a proprietary protocol.
Which bit of what I said is wrong?
This part is not quite correct.
RAAT is the protocol Roon created and uses.
HQPlayer NAA is the equivalent of Roon Bridge.
HQPlayer uses a custom, proprietary TCP/IP-based network audio protocol.
Having designed and built my own music server and bridge using my own proprietary protocol, Iâd say Roon using RAAT sounds no different.
Itâs all about volume level matching. +0.2dB can make one sound more preferable over another. Plus no DSP.
You also have to use the same hardware. Blind A/B testing is the only real way to validate your statements IMHO.
When using HQPlayer with ROON where does RAAT get used?
When you configure Roon to output to HQPlayer, RAAT is entirely bypassed and not used anywhere in the audio signal path. Check your signal path.
Roon to HQPlayer â Roon hands the raw audio data directly to HQPlayer. It does this using HQPlayerâs own control API rather than RAAT. Roon acts strictly as a library manager and user interface in this layout.
So nothing I said was wrongâŚ
I will put the bits in bold that matter to make it clearer.
You wrote:
HQPlayer NAA is the equivalent of Roon Bridge.
HQPlayer uses a custom, proprietary TCP/IP-based network audio protocol. but has no name.
NAA is not the equivalent of RAAT.
NAA is the equivalent of Roon Bridge.
Network Audio Adapter (NAA) â Signalyst.
But nit-picking doesnât substantiate your claims that HQPlayer with no upsampling sounds better than Roon using RAAT, with no DSP.
This is the point. If making a claim, it must be substantiated. On the other hand, if itâs a preferences thatâs fine, but say it so. Letâs not rehash old discussions.
Right, so I didnât say anything wrong regarding RAAT/NAA. Thanks.
I also didnât say that HQPlayer with no upsampling sounded better than ROON. I only said itâs possible to test that way⌠(if one is curious about RAAT vs other options).
One wouldnât have to pick nits if others engaged in good faith⌠Iâm going to mute you now.
Except I didnât say that⌠jeez.
ErmâŚ
Doubling down is unhelpful and is bordering on axe-grinding.
Iâll leave this to @mjw 