SQ comparison: Rock vs Windows OS on Roon

Maybe in the 2060’s there will be another retro resurgence and Audio Precision will start using vacuum tubes in their gear again :slight_smile:

I’m still waiting for the 8 track to come back before I make my next big audio gear purchase.

Yes the cable is either generating an electrical signal because of static energy between the cable and the floor or it can generate a signal bacause the cable find itself in a magnetic field so a signal is generated by moving the cable in that field.
Third is the changing parasitic capacitance of the cable by moving it. This genrates a signal as well, just like a condensor microphone. Some cables are more sensitive to it then others. I once made 20 xlr cables from a 100m microphone cable roll. They all suffered from terrible microphonics, so bad even that you could amplify the sound of someone walking on stage. And when rolled up you could shout in it and record it. And that was just cable, nothing attched to it. Cables from another roll where totally silent.

Here I think you are being too PC. Once someone states an opinion, which is all @MusicEar, or you, are doing, then that opinion is open for comment. Are we only to re-affirm every opinion like sycophants, or can differing opinions be discussed without being labelled as ‘rude’?

If someone is going against current scientific thought, it is fair to question both sides.

What if someone made the comment that they thought they had special shoes that allowed them to walk off a cliff, would a warning that they might fall and be injured, be considered rude or potentially helpful?

Is @MusicEar going against current scientific thought? Because he has at least tried to reference some of what he has written and has stated why he thinks he hears what he does. In fact he may be one of the very few on this thread who has actually applied some rigour to his statements.

1 Like

If my defense of @MusicEar was too aggressive, then I apologize.

He was simply reporting an observation, though. He wasn’t making any scientific claims. It was scientific claims that were used to respond to his reported observations. That response amounted to saying, “don’t report your observations (or your observations are meaningless), because science doesn’t affirmatively support them.” Just as you are concerned that my accusation of rudeness was an attempt to get someone here to shut up, my concern was that science was being wielded to get @MusicEar to shut up about his observations.

Yeah, science doesn’t support the contention that computational activity and electrical noise compromise the audio quality of computers. It also doesn’t refute that contention, at least in any scientifically meaningful way. The absence of scientific evidence for a contention is not the same as the existence of evidence for the refutation of such contention. In other words, @MusicEar was not “going against current scientific thought.” He was just reporting his observations and their context. What hubris…

What was so helpful about pointing out that science doesn’t support the reported observations? If anything, it is irresponsible (the opposite of helpful) to ask folks to assume that physical measurements are exhaustive observed differences. Science just isn’t there yet and not moving very quickly towards it.

1 Like

Well of course if we needed scientific evidence to support all observations in this “musical” hobby of ours, where would that put the vast majority of Hi Fi magazine reviewers :innocent:. It is those many observations that keep us playing with our “toys” (as my wife would put it) and spending vast amounts of hard earned cash in the search for the “holy grail” of that seemingly unattainable ultimate sound quality :smiley:.

I have no opinion about the original topic (Rock vs WinPC), but read it to find out what others think.

Instead of simple informative back and forth opinions, the bulk of what I read were essentially ad hominem attacks which serve little purpose and are annoying to read.

We all recognize the overt ad hominem attacks: “you’re stupid,” etc, but “rude” and other opinionated epithets are still ad hominem attacks, just softened. I wanted to point this out. All opinions should be tolerated, not just those which are head-shaking affirmations.

2 Likes

So… it’s ok to be rude? Ok.

There is no support in objective science for that statement, so I’ll dismiss it.

This thread would benefit from more discussion about SQ and less about other posts and users.

7 Likes

Never mind the difference between Windows & ROCK: You need to listen to it running on AMD hardware.

UNBELIEVABLE.

1 Like

Is ROCK compatible with AMD processor/hardware?

Someone has gotten it running on AMD on the ROCK hardware thread but my guess is Adam has now switched from challenging the premise of this thread to simply trashing it.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Possibility of ROCK on Mac?

My win2012 server running the audiophiloptimizer software are running around 400 treads and below 45 processes. For me, this is as good solution than struggling with a unfamiliar Linux software. And I have not even tunes the software as much as it can be tuned. All security things, firewall and such are turned off. No softeupdates happening that can screew up the setup.
Before and after showed a big leap in the richness, clearness and blackness of the sound.

I think if we were to go with something because we are familiar with it we would all end up with some flavour of Windows or Mac software. But to be clear the installation of ROCK is far from a struggle. It is already optimised, no need for pay software to do that. It runs only what it needs to in order to run Roon and it’s updates are managed so as not to be intrusive. They happen in seconds when you trigger them. As for SQ, it is OK. I haven’t spent much time making comparisons, objective or otherwise because I suspect it does its job well enough. There is a lot of good things said about SQ on optimised Windows Server setups but it seems an expensive way to go for me.

1 Like

I recently moved my core to a NUC setup - can’t really tell the difference in SQ (via Ethernet on Devialet AIR) between my previous windows (custom build now only for Kodi and other media) setup and ROCK/ NUC setup. However the convenience and having a simple setup with ROCK beats my prior setup hands down! So thanks again guys - the software development here is simply awesome - from Devailet AIR rendering to having a roon dedicated server with NUC - have to say listening to music is such a joy nowadays!!

1 Like

I’m experimenting with Audiophile Optimizer. I previously ran RoonServer on a CAPSV3 Zuma and Windows 10 Pro. I use DSP via Convolution and get good performance.
Today I struggled with getting Windows Server 2012/R2 up and running and will be doing Audiophile Optimizer on it today.
Already I’m thinking “Is this really worth it?”. Windows Server 2012 is a handful, and once I get past the 180 day trial period I need about $900 for the license. Tack on $140 for Audiophile Optimizer and I’m over $1000.
For that money I could buy an 8th Gen i7 Nuc running ROCK. The new NUC will be faster than my CAPSV3 Zuma. My output to the DAC will be Ethernet via MSB Network Renderer, so I don’t need to worry about USB noise.
So, with a ROCK box I have a machine optimized for Roon, right down to it’s OS. With AO, I have a machine optimized for Roon, by minimizing the OS. But I choke on the large sum for the server license. I have to say the install with the minimized Windows Server does sound better.
Has anyone had experience with both systems?

1 Like

ROCK is a minimalist OS designed to run Roon. I can said this combination is almost perfect as an audiophile streamer. The nucelus is one good example.

If you don’t do intensive PCM to DSD, get a low powered fanless PC, such as ZOTAC C series.

It is silent and low power consumption so you can use linear power supply to further reduce noise when connected via USB to a USB DAC.

I too prefer the sound of the Optimized Windows 10 with Fidelizer that Rock on the same Hardware. I also prefer the sound of the direct connection of the NUC to the DAC than using a USBridge endpoint or using ISO Regen. Is it only me?

Everyone is always talking about noise generated by a busey or high powered processor. I did a test some time ago. I friend of mine made a script that performs stesstests on random intervals. I run the script and just listened to music all evening. I did not perceived any difference in sound quality (nor could anyone else) the whole evening so I thought the script had stopped working. Turned out it didn’t, it had been running graphic tests, cpu tests, network tests all with 100% capacity for several times, some times even as long as 15min and the whole computer was freakingly hot but I did not hear any difference at at all, completely none whatsoever

So what about computer generated noise into equipment nearby. Well, another simple test. Play some CD’s while the computer is on and connected and performing a stress test, second turn it off and unplug everything. Guess what, no difference, completely none. Did this same two tests at a friends place, same results. Everyone can test this and I really advice everyone to do it before spending a dime on a cure for a problem that might not exist. Offcoarse in some rare cases it could be of help but just test it if there is a need for anything to be done first, don’t just assume things

For example, another friend of mine had spend thousands on damping feet, filters, reclockers, shakti stones etc etc but kept complaining about a harsh sound. Turned out to be breakup of his metal dome tweeters, some tweaks made it a little more bearable but could never possible cure the cause.

7 Likes