Bit perfect is nothing when the timing of the dataflow is jittery.
Reducing Jitter is always a nice goal for getting better SQ.
Bit perfect is nothing when the timing of the dataflow is jittery.
Roon/RAAT doesn’t introduce jitter, the software removes jitter as part of its architecture with buffers and sending data to the endpoint on demand (using the clock at the endpoint as a guide).
If you have jitter problems, look somewhere between and including your endpoint and DAC.
We don’t know if the OP has problems with jitter, he just asked for better SQ.
There are may be some problems to fix in his set up outside of ROON, just speculation since no more infos available.
It was a general comment like yours since someone started talking about jitter, not addressing OP.
Correct. It’s really the transmission of the data that’s the issue - and the fact that noise also comes along for the ride.
Something everyone should try if they are using a decent outboard DAC. Start a song playing then have someone pull the Ethernet cable. The music will continue to play from the buffer but you’ll get a sense how detrimental network activity can be to the music. Most of the naysayers who have posted here won’t try this and even if they did they won’t hear a difference as their belief that only bit perfection matters likely ended then with up a system with a noise floor too high to hear a difference. But it’s not just ones and zeroes that travel down a USB cable. It’s an analog signal and it’s turned from/to digital by comparing it to a reference voltage. And in the real world noise can alter when that reference voltage threshold is crossed.
True. To quote a wise person (okay, a wise guy, LOL):
“No network is better than no network”
You are spot on with your suggestion but of course the user experience stinks! I love Roon and want to be able to use Roon - but I want it to sound as good as other solutions that don’t cause as much network activity. Roon’s busyness is part of why we love Roon but it is likely what is also hindering its sound quality.
Ah, it took 70 posts, but the trope that those who can’t hear a difference don’t have systems (another variant is ears) good enough to hear the difference has finally been posted…
It’s not a trope - it’s a fact. It’s basic science that the system under test has to be resolving enough to allow differences to be observed. My own system wasn’t revealing enough even just five years ago.
And yes listening skills matter too. Occam’s razer tells us that often the simplest answer is the correct one. We must start by confirming that both the listener and his/her system are up to the task of sorting out the differences we are talking about. Those of you who fail one or both of these tests are quick to react the way you did with mock outrage as a way to deflect from the elephant in the room.
Fact is if one believes bit perfect is all that matters they will likely have ended up assembling a system that makes that the only thing that does matter.
Some of what you have said is true, except for this statement which is a pure speculative assumption, not fact.
Occam’s razor not withstanding.
Well said as far as “speculative assumption”. That’s accurate.
I look at my two-channel system as a “precision instrument” that delivers a tremendous amount of goodness. The downside though it makes too obvious the harm being done by something in the signal path.
But what about those who haven’t aimed for a system that isn’t a precision instrument? Well they aren’t going to hear these things. My home theater system fits that bill. Roon sounds nice down there but it’s simply not resolving enough for many differences to emerge. I didn’t set out for that system to be that way. I just wanted movies to be fun to watch.
It’s helpful for us to be honest with ourselves as to which kind of system we have. All these posts where individuals report that Roon sounds good enough for them are wonderful to see. But why not allow room for Roon to impress even more with better gear? It’s not like you are going to have to pay any more for a better sounding Roon. All the better that this product improves as maybe one day you will come to appreciate improved sound quality, despite not thinking there was any way it could get better.
Since you don’t know the quality of the listeners or their systems, to argue that is why they can’t hear the difference, begs the question. You see the problem with that logic, right?
don’t have any meaning, as a logical argument. They’re just bald statements.
The problem with Occam’s razor is determining what is the simplest explanation and in this case the simplest explanation is that people don’t hear a difference because there is no difference. Speculating about the quality of ears or systems only complicates the explanation.
That’s why people who understand the flaws in Occam’s razor don’t try to use it to buttress their argument.
You’re taking the Michael, right? BTW, it’s a razor. Furthermore, the principle of the razor is to choose the solution that relies the least on assumptions.
I don’t think Roon is at issue, I have very good gear and Roon sounds incredible. If Roon can improve things, that’s great for everyone but I don’t think they have anything to improve. I am not even tempted by audiophile Switches, fancy cables and the like. The file is delivered to your buffer bit perfect, that’s all it has to do. After that, the sound is all in your systems hands. The Room acoustic is also important.
What I stated to be fact was that the system and the listener matter and that science demands that these be factored in.
I also offered the opinion that many who don’t think Roon can sound any better probably have systems that make that true.
I agree Roon sounds “incredible”. It’s flaws become revealed only when compared to other products.
I have an Innuos Zenith. There are several playback modes available - and I can easily switch between them. I started with “Roon Core”. It sounded incredible. Out of curiosity I disabled Roon and listened to the Innuos internal player, which is an optimized version of Squeezelite. This brings an easy to hear improvement over Roon Core. It’s how I’m listening right now.
Innuos heard from several customers about how much better the internal player sounded. They were challenged to try to get Roon to sound as good. They came up with what they call “Roon Experimental” mode. This runs both Roon Core and their internal player. Roon doesn’t play the song itself, Squeezelite plays it. Again it’s easy to hear that this sound better than Roon Core mode. But it’s also easy to hear that Roon turned off sounds even better.
OK, I guess it’s a difference in what these words mean to us.
My bad. I expressed an opinion and began it with the word “fact”. The word “likely” should have been the clue that I was not stating a fact but using the word “fact” for emphasis. My apologies for the confusion. I can see how it came off as me talking out of both sides of my mouth.
There are a lot of appeals to logic and fact in this thread, but precious few actual examples of them.
I’m not saying the Innuos sounds bad or anything, but you’d still need to validate the Roon implementation made by Innuos in this scenario.
Innuos threads the “low power, low noise” path, but their hardware is way below Roons own reccy’s. Perhaps the hardware isn’t up to the task of running both Core and Bridge, and therefore sounds better with a “lighter” Squeezelite client?
BTW, there was some talk of Innuos launching a software of their own, to compete with both Roon, Lumin and Auralic. Have you heard anymore about this?