We are having a discussion at PS Audio online in reference to a Paul’s Post email he sent where he is implying that music sounds more “pure” through the Qobuz app than when using Roon. He says “In the case of Roon and Audirvana (or JRiver and so on) you’re running the track through the computer (or Roon core which is a Windows computer). You’re supposedly “making it better” but in fact, to me it sounds worse.” He says he thinks it has to do with “purity.” Here’s what I said in the comments:
I did a lot of research and was told in no uncertain terms that all Roon is doing is TELLING the AirLens [streamer] to pull directly from the network, from Qobuz’s data on the internet, then it goes through the AirLens to the DAC. It sounds like you’re saying that the data is going through Roon, through the computer, before it goes into the AirLens.
So is this true?
Paul suggests that we do a listening comparison, using Roon, JRiver, etc., to which I said:
For me the experiment you suggest would be worthless because I use DSP room (not Roon) correction filters, plugged into Roon, to tweak the sound to better approximate what the engineers, mixers, and producers heard in their mixing room. So you’d think that Roon would be tweaking the sound in that case, that it would have to be pulling the sound through itself, but I was also told that what Roon does is TELL the DAC what to DO with the data after it’s been received.
Is this correct?
Finally, I said: Something that tells me Roon is doing what I wanted (only being a “teller”) is that every once in a while, Roon will lock up and I have to force-quit it (MacOS), and when I do, the music keeps playing on its own, so that’s telling me Roon is NOT involved any more than telling the AirLens what to play.
Option 1: Run the streaming on the endpoint (Qobuz Connect model or local FLAC files on DLNA server)
Result: „Audiophiles“ are scared of the bad Ethernet „noise“ and CPU „noise“ caused by FLAC unpacking. They suggest to configure DLNA server to convert to WAV in order to avoid processing on the endpoint and perform it on the server instead.
Option 2: Perform the processing on the server like Roon does but even better by sending raw PCM to the endpoint to minimize processing on the endpoint. I.e., do exactly what the audiophiles recommended in Option 1.
Result: OH NO!
It is stupid and wrong. They should not even talk about it but show the measurements. If they talk, they should provide a technical explanation that isn’t utterly ridiculous
11 Likes
mjw
(Father! Father! Resist not! Let us destroy the core! Set us free!)
4
This is when you should stop reading what he says. The stream (a series of 0s and 1s) sent from Qobuz’ servers is identical to that received directly by the endpoint, or that received by Roon and transmitted to the endpoint.
IOW, the stream is neither altered nor contaminated in any scenario unless you choose to apply DSP at some point in the chain.
Incidentally, different inputs on the same streamer are not equal; some send the stream directly to the DAC, and others apply DSP or up-sampling before doing so.
Yet another reason why I personally wouldn’t trust a word out of that company.
Their dismissive we can do Roon better than Roon despite a huge amount of bravura and ■■■■■■■■■
Yes for a long time they claimed the sound of Roon was subpar and they would come out with their own server that would do the same as Roon but sound better. When they were unable to do that they came up with the Airlens that they claimed solved the sound problems they had identified with Roon. Now it seems they have changed their mind on that.
In answer to the question. The Roon server does do something to the music file even if all DSP etc is off. It uncompresses the Flac file to the raw PCM before passing it to the Roon endpoint. Most other systems pass the Flac file to the endpoint where it is uncompressed. So there is a bit of a difference. However the data passed onto the DAC will be identical in both situations.
I have heard it said that several of the original Roon founders went to Villanova University, originally formed by the Augustinians and as we all (may not) know St. Augustine often prayed to be pure “but not yet”.
Perhaps Paul is just wildly extrapolating from these purported facts.
Or of course he may be on to something and instead of Nugs we’ll get “Pure Roon”.
First, I would really like to thank everyone for the great responses. I understood about 68% of it, which means I’m getting better at this. I have been listening intently to recordings for over 50 years, but I was never too invested in analyzing the audio quality part - it was all about the music and performance for me. Sure I loved a great recording, but to figure out WHAT made it great in terms of audio was not in my main interests until maybe 10 years ago. And it wasn’t until I built a dedicated listening room, bought better equipment, chose Roon, etc. that I got really serious. I typed all that to say I’d never in a million years be able to tell the difference between Roon and JRiver or Apple or Qobuz. I can barely pick out higher than CD resolution. But I’m trying, and want to hear as much as I can and go with the best approach just in case I might hear something.
As far as Paul McGowan and PS Audio, I’ve never read him say anything disparaging before about Roon. When I was upgrading from USB-to-DAC over to ethernet-to-Airlens, I got nothing but big suggestions to go with Roon. In general I’ve gotten very flexible advice from PS Audio and like that they are “music first” when it comes to sound. If others here have a different experience, that’s fine. Paul admits he’s human and isn’t afraid to recommend competitors and talk about where his products might come up short. Sure he’s biased, but aren’t we all?
All I really wanted to know was whether I was told the truth when someone said that Roon does not get in between the incoming signal and the DAC and it appears that’s not 100 percent correct. Either way, it all sounds fine to me.
mjw
(Father! Father! Resist not! Let us destroy the core! Set us free!)
12
That’s how it should be! Don’t let anyone tell it different.
Redbook is perfect, especially for our aging ears, and higher resolution doesn’t imply better.
Indeed, if you want to chase a better recording, seek out the best mastering. Sometimes this is exclusively (hybrid) SACD or hi-res, but frequently the best mastering is the humble CD.
I fully agree on mastering. It seems that it’s not until we get into the audiophile hobby that we realize just how important it is. I’ve certainly appreciated re-MIXes, but I think it’s almost more the reMASTERing that can really kill a good recording. As far as CDs, I regularly read of “the early days” when digital was “brittle” and “sterile,” and I sure heard a few of those, but I also heard plenty of recordings that sounded fantastic too. I think the technology was perfectly capable right off the bat of delivering everything vinyl could - it just needed to be in the right hands.
Getting ready for all the vinyl fanatics to set me straight. Oh wait, this is the Roon forum, never mind. Hey, I have a question: is there any way to apply DSP convolution filters to what’s coming out of my turntable? Some sort of digitizing phono pre-amp that will Roon could read? Yeah, I have a great recorder to digitize LPs, but who has the time?
1 Like
AceRimmer
("I’m not just a hero; I’m a legend!")
14
Plenty of them old skool “vinyl fanatics” haunting these hallowed pages I assure you, including a number of the mods…lol.
Some early CD’s were indeed excellent especially those done in AAD, things took a sour turn when shifting to DDD imho.
As far as vinyl rips I know @Rugby is experimenting with that right now, might have an insight for you there.
The problem wit them is that while Mr. McGowan is a very good salesman, he would not know an electron from an induction coil, and he would not care even if he did. Whatever he says is, and should be taken as, an advertising for PS Audio products. Nothing more, nothing less. As most ad copy, it has nothing to do with anything real.
Those vinyl fanatics may cringe, but you could get a quality ADC (analog to digital converter) to route your phono pre through Roon. It would connect to digital inputs to your DAC.
I use a cheap one to take stereo analog output from my TV to the coaxial input of my DAC.
Roon’s native way of moving audio from the Server / Core to and endpoint is Roon Advanced Audio Transport (RAAT). I’ll come back to this later.
All, and I mean all audio in a Roon environment comes from the server. Regardless of the endpoint type. In the case of streaming Qobuz this is:
Qobuz → Internet → LAN → Roon Server → LAN → Endpoint
In the case of RAAT, the audio bits embedded in the RAAT can be seen in the signal path. That is, if it’s lossless then it’s the PCM or DSD being carried. If it’s PEQ or any other DSP (even volume leveling) it’s those adjusted bits. So, expanding on the map a above a little bit…
Qobuz FLAC → Roon Server Unpacks the FLAC and does DSP → RAAT PCM bits → Roon Bridge Endpoint
If the signal path says lossless than it’s the exact PCM bits carried in the FLAC. In this case it’s “bit perfect”.
Does that mean Qobuz to Airlens direct vs. with Roon hop in-between will sound the same? Some don’t hear a difference but a lot do. There is a lot more difference in this path which could be contributing to what you hear than just the bit. But you asked a question about the bits and what path they take so I answered that.
Yes, the bits go through Roon Server when using Roon.
Well with the way he talks tech, I’m guessing Mr. McG does know pretty much, but I’m not one to ask - I know enough to ask questions, but I sure ain’t no engineer. I will say the PS Audio products I own sure sound as good as stuff I’ve heard costing 3 times as much, so ad copy in my case made sense.
