|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 23, 2023 16:03:56 GMT -5
It is worth pointing out that not all audiophiles love Roon, for instance below is a link to a very well regarded audio forum where peoples hatred of the app or program what ever you call it have turn into 31+ pages of negative comments. Between this and its pricing structure it is plenty enough to steer me away from ever using it. Mind you this isn't the only place where people have vented their frustration at this company and their app. One doesn't have to luck too far to find many who have abandoned it. To top it off I don't know of anyone who thinks Roon has sound quality that matches Audirvana or HQ Player and probably a few others, in fact most people think of it as poor quality sound but great library content. audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/63366-i-have-had-it-with-roon-their-lack-of-support-their-user-forum-and-its-users/Another thing worth considering, the hifi world can be fickle. What is considered the be all end all today will become a thing of the past tomorrow. If this isn't enough the digital world moves quickly, things change quickly and also become outdated far more quickly than say amps and other analog devices. Effectively a DAC/Streamer combo will be a race to the bottom to see which one becomes outdated quicker than the other. In this regard I applaud Emotiva for designing nothing more than a stand alone DAC, even though my current DAC does have limited streaming capability. Whether or not it ever gets used this way is doubtful. I have used Roon, Audirvana and HQPlayer. While all allow for upsampling and various DSP functions I do think Audirvana and HQPlayer, both of which are incredibly adjustable, sound better than Roon. I would say HQPlayer is #1 for sound quality, it has a steep learning curve, but can do anything. However, it should be noted that HQPlayer is embedded in Roon. So, if you use Roon with HQPlayer embedded you are effectively listening to the audio quality of HQPlayer. Metadata management, ease of use relative to Roon itself, and Roon ARC are big advantages for Roon, and as I said, Roon has an embedded version of HQPlayer so you do have that option. Given the expense of Roon I would try Audirvana first and see if it can meet your metadata management needs. I know it will sound fabulous. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Feb 23, 2023 16:05:46 GMT -5
$10/month in this hobby is hardly expensive..
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2023 16:09:54 GMT -5
That is quite possible... When I think of Roon I would assume I would use, and would specifically want to use, their RAAT protocol... Which seems to have a good reputation of being able to deliver bit-perfect content... And apparently enables Roon to both control and report on exactly what's going on in the signal path... I do not consider DLNA to be "trustworthy" or "reliable"... I suppose there are some DLNA implementations that work well... However, it has a lot of variables, a lot of unknowns, and a lot of "won't tell you what it's doing"... Some DLNA implementations seem to be bit-perfect, but some are not, or aren't always, and you cannot always tell which is which. I've definitely tried one or two in the past that were... dubious... One of the things I've heard about Roon, which I consider a HUGE plus, is that it WILL give you a detailed view of the signal path, showing every format, sample rate, and conversion along the way. (Maybe Roon, and some specific clients, are doing DLNA so well that it really can be trusted... so I may just be biased by a few bad past experiences. ) However, taking that to be the case, it's one more example of Roon's commitment to supporting more of the market... And, by the way, everything else I said still stands... If Roon is going to be acting as your streaming client for your other services... and then "re-streaming" to its clients... Then the only "streaming source" those clients need to accept is Roon (either via RAAT or DLNA. ) That is the major distinction in a nutshell. If you are streaming from Roon to a client device, over an Ethernet network, then that audio is being sent using Roon's streaming protocol. Basically, at that point, as far as the client device is concerned, Roon is "the streaming service". And that isn't going to work unless that client device supports Roon and their streaming protocol (RAAT). (Essentially the Roon Client is joining Roon's streaming network... and must work properly with it.)... Are you sure about this, KeithL ? I think that I've used a LOT of streaming gear that wasn't RAAT compatible, and it all worked fine with Roon from a remote server. I've streamed (among others) to the following: Oppo 105 Oppo 205 Apple TV3 iFi Zen (in "all-in-one" mode) To my knowledge, none of these (except the Zen) support RAAT - and even the Zen needed to be in "Roon mode" before it would RAAT with Roon. My impression was that all the items above were using DLNA, not RAAT. |
|
|
|
Post by tchaik on Feb 23, 2023 16:43:07 GMT -5
$10/month in this hobby is hardly expensive..  well, what about when we spent $1000 a month on this hobby? wife left, took kids, took house, took most of one's disposable cash. now, $10 a month is expensive! |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Feb 23, 2023 19:59:36 GMT -5
It is worth pointing out that not all audiophiles love Roon, for instance below is a link to a very well regarded audio forum where peoples hatred of the app or program what ever you call it have turn into 31+ pages of negative comments. Between this and its pricing structure it is plenty enough to steer me away from ever using it. Mind you this isn't the only place where people have vented their frustration at this company and their app. One doesn't have to luck too far to find many who have abandoned it. To top it off I don't know of anyone who thinks Roon has sound quality that matches Audirvana or HQ Player and probably a few others, in fact most people think of it as poor quality sound but great library content. audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/63366-i-have-had-it-with-roon-their-lack-of-support-their-user-forum-and-its-users/I’m guessing, since you’re guessing too, that it’s a very small percentage of rOON users that are unhappy with the sound quality delivered by rOON. After all rOON delivers a bit perfect file to the rOON endpoint. Do Audirvana or HQ player deliver a “better than” bit perfect file to the rOON endpoint? Of course not. IMO it’s the endpoint that determines the sound quality. Russ |
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Feb 23, 2023 20:09:31 GMT -5
That is the major distinction in a nutshell. If you are streaming from Roon to a client device, over an Ethernet network, then that audio is being sent using Roon's streaming protocol. Basically, at that point, as far as the client device is concerned, Roon is "the streaming service". And that isn't going to work unless that client device supports Roon and their streaming protocol (RAAT). (Essentially the Roon Client is joining Roon's streaming network... and must work properly with it.)... Are you sure about this, KeithL? I think that I've used a LOT of streaming gear that wasn't RAAT compatible, and it all worked fine with Roon from a remote server. I've streamed (among others) to the following: Oppo 105 Oppo 205 Apple TV3 iFi Zen (in "all-in-one" mode) To my knowledge, none of these (except the Zen) support RAAT - and even the Zen needed to be in "Roon mode" before it would RAAT with Roon. My impression was that all the items above were using DLNA, not RAAT. The 205 is a rOON certified endpoint however it’s limited to 24/192 and won’t do DSD. That said, it works very well as a rOON endpoint. However, due to the limitations I’ve stated I prefer to use the 205s USB input. Russ |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 23, 2023 21:41:40 GMT -5
The "whatever reason" is pretty simple... Apparently a lot of manufacturers have either forgotten how to design a good analog section that actually sounds good... Or they just plain aren't willing to bother... Yeah, it's the latter... |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 23, 2023 21:45:23 GMT -5
Hmmm… since when did “the engineer’s intention” become the measure of audio fidelity? I’d rather wonder what the performing artist thought of the version. Having listened to recorded music my whole life, I’d conclude that many recording engineers are either deaf or else mastered their recordings to sound best over AM radio. Just sayin’… Not disagreeing with you in principle.. but also recording engineers may be serving a different master these days! |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 23, 2023 21:48:03 GMT -5
IMO, a streaming dac that doesn't support Roon these days is a non starter. But then the streaming dac manufacturer needs to "man up" and pay a fee..... Horses for courses.... |
|
hemster
Global Moderator
Particle Manufacturer
...still listening... still watching
Posts: 51,951
|
Post by hemster on Feb 23, 2023 21:49:25 GMT -5
That question is, will it last more than 3 or 5 years? Certainly my XPR-1, XSP-1. Airmotiv5, ERC-2 did not. Might that have to do with "moving parts"? |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 24, 2023 16:05:29 GMT -5
I have used Roon, Audirvana and HQPlayer. While all allow for upsampling and various DSP functions I do think Audirvana and HQPlayer, both of which are incredibly adjustable, sound better than Roon. I would say HQPlayer is #1 for sound quality, it has a steep learning curve, but can do anything. However, it should be noted that HQPlayer is embedded in Roon. So, if you use Roon with HQPlayer embedded you are effectively listening to the audio quality of HQPlayer. Metadata management, ease of use relative to Roon itself, and Roon ARC are big advantages for Roon, and as I said, Roon has an embedded version of HQPlayer so you do have that option. Given the expense of Roon I would try Audirvana first and see if it can meet your metadata management needs. I know it will sound fabulous. Thanks for the suggestion, but FWIW I have been an Audirvana user since its inception many years ago and still continue to use to this day. Have been doing computer based audio since the first OS X version of Mac using iTunes back in those days as it was the only jukebox readily available until Foobar came along on the windows platform. Have also spent a considerable amount of time looking into HQ Player/Roon but mostly HQP and decided it's just not a road I want to go down. Audirvana Origin provides all I need, at least for now, and the UI is good enough for what I use it for which primarily audio files on storage. As a side note I have yet to hear upsampling provide better audio, different yes, but not better to me and it certainly isn't for lack of experimenting with it either. It's all subjective though. But your comments regarding Roon sound quality vs either of the other two reflects everything else I have read or heard about it. Point well taken. Apparently I must have given the impression of being a neophyte with digital audio, but not the case with me. Been at for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 24, 2023 16:07:15 GMT -5
$10/month in this hobby is hardly expensive.. Roon is $829 for a lifetime subscription or $15 per month billed monthly, $12.50 annually. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 24, 2023 16:13:11 GMT -5
Routlaw, we’d be interested in your personal experience with Roon, which is unique in integrating Tidal, Qobuz and your local library. HQplayer, Audirvsna, etc have different functions. Except for optional Roon features, Roon makes no pretense of altering audio quality. Suggest you try it out in your system, not by reading internet opinions. Interesting comment, but does that statement, "Suggest you try it out in your system, not by reading internet opinions" mean we should not be participating in forums such as this one and actually not paying attention to what anyone has to say here as well? Regardless I have no interest in Roon or Tidal. I did subscribe to Qobuz for a couple of years however and just found that it wasn't my preferred way of dealing with music. Yes I am well aware of the differences with Audirvana or HQP and Roon. Its all good even though some will take different paths than others. |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Feb 24, 2023 17:03:23 GMT -5
Then there is end spoiler argument. None are great. Buy the Master Tape at 15ips, and specify IEC or NAB equalization. Geez I am naughty sure, but go to the source. Expensive but oh my what a game changer. Have heard Master Tapes. I am slowly working toward that. Then I can die because it won’t get better than that!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 24, 2023 17:09:51 GMT -5
I've used HQPlayer in the past (the separate Windows version) and I'm going to have to agree with BOTH sides on this one. I would agree that, with certain specific tracks, I found certain settings in HQPlayer to result in a more pleasing sound. However, at the same time, I am not in the least bit convinced that what I was hearing was a more accurate rendition of the recording. I'm equally not convinced that I was hearing a more accurate rendition of the original performance. Also, while a given setting would sometimes make a certain track sound more pleasing, I never found one that consistently made every track sound more pleasing. To me this places HQPlayer firmly in the category of "post processing" rather than of "improvements in system accuracy". (In terms of accuracy, there is only one absolute most correct choice, so either one of those options is the right one, or they're all wrong in different ways.) And, to be quite blunt, that isn't a rabbit hole that I want to spend too much time in. I have also seem examples of where I personally thought that a track could be improved using the Impact or Low End Focus modules in Izotope Ozone... In my opinion both can sometimes provide significant audible improvements on the way certain tracks sound (to me). However, when I use them, I am quite clearly "remastering the track to suit my personal preferences"... And, on the one hand, when I purchase music to listen to, I generally do not think of it as "raw material on which to practice my mastering skills"... And, on the other hand, if I really put in the effort, I tend to find that different tracks sound best with very different settings... But BOTH of those hands lead me to the conclusion that I've clearly crossed over the line between "listening" and "remastering"... And I absolutely do not want to "remaster every track before I listen to it"... Now, as it turns out, oversampling is pretty much necessary in a DAC... It is pretty much impossible to design a practical reconstruction filter to use with non-oversampled 44k content that doesn't introduce various audible artifacts. And, since oversampling eliminates these issues quite effectively, and clearly "solves way more problems than it creates", oversampling is clearly a good idea. (When oversampling is used in a DAC, it is generally not intended to make music sound better, but to sidestep issues that would otherwise make the music sound worse.) And, that being the case, I guess it's possible that one of the huge list of filters that HQPlayer offers will turn out to be more accurate than the one in your DAC... And, THAT being the case, assuming that it were possible to actually figure out which was the most accurate... (Although, to be quite blunt, the guys who design DACs are pretty sharp, so the one that's built into your DAC might actually be the best option after all.) However I cannot rule out the possibility that some other choice COULD result in an overall improvement in system accuracy... But, personally, to me, once you cross the line of being unable to determine when something is actually an improvement and when it's just a variation... I tend to feel like I've progressed uncomfortably far down that rabbit hole... and I'm seeing daylight receding dangerously far in the distance behind me... At which point I try to turn off the computer and listen to some music. Thanks for the suggestion, but FWIW I have been an Audirvana user since its inception many years ago and still continue to use to this day. Have been doing computer based audio since the first OS X version of Mac using iTunes back in those days as it was the only jukebox readily available until Foobar came along on the windows platform. Have also spent a considerable amount of time looking into HQ Player/Roon but mostly HQP and decided it's just not a road I want to go down. Audirvana Origin provides all I need, at least for now, and the UI is good enough for what I use it for which primarily audio files on storage. As a side note I have yet to hear upsampling provide better audio, different yes, but not better to me and it certainly isn't for lack of experimenting with it either. It's all subjective though. But your comments regarding Roon sound quality vs either of the other two reflects everything else I have read or heard about it. Point well taken. Apparently I must have given the impression of being a neophyte with digital audio, but not the case with me. Been at for decades. |
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 24, 2023 19:59:50 GMT -5
keith L, I think you just described all the reasons why I prefer not to go down that path with HQP, simply put its just too much distraction and putzing around even if it makes a difference however small or large. Contrary to that, this is why I prefer a DAC with anti-aliasing filters available to choose from in the menu. They can make a difference for the better and a heck of a lot easier to mess with than HQP's scenario. Boomzilla referred to them earlier in the thread as low pass filters but really they are much more than that by a large margin. Quite frankly all of these home entertainment endeavors have become far too complex, be it HT or music. And if you took all of the participants on all of the forums that exist today its doubtful they would make up 1% of the people watching movies, tv series and listening to music in a serious manner. The vast majority of people have no idea what an SACD is, never heard of them. That should speak volumes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Feb 24, 2023 23:58:07 GMT -5
I've used HQPlayer in the past (the separate Windows version) and I'm going to have to agree with BOTH sides on this one. I would agree that, with certain specific tracks, I found certain settings in HQPlayer to result in a more pleasing sound. However, at the same time, I am not in the least bit convinced that what I was hearing was a more accurate rendition of the recording. I'm equally not convinced that I was hearing a more accurate rendition of the original performance. Also, while a given setting would sometimes make a certain track sound more pleasing, I never found one that consistently made every track sound more pleasing. To me this places HQPlayer firmly in the category of "post processing" rather than of "improvements in system accuracy". (In terms of accuracy, there is only one absolute most correct choice, so either one of those options is the right one, or they're all wrong in different ways.) And, to be quite blunt, that isn't a rabbit hole that I want to spend too much time in. I have also seem examples of where I personally thought that a track could be improved using the Impact or Low End Focus modules in Izotope Ozone... In my opinion both can sometimes provide significant audible improvements on the way certain tracks sound (to me). However, when I use them, I am quite clearly "remastering the track to suit my personal preferences"... And, on the one hand, when I purchase music to listen to, I generally do not think of it as "raw material on which to practice my mastering skills"... And, on the other hand, if I really put in the effort, I tend to find that different tracks sound best with very different settings... But BOTH of those hands lead me to the conclusion that I've clearly crossed over the line between "listening" and "remastering"... And I absolutely do not want to "remaster every track before I listen to it"... Now, as it turns out, oversampling is pretty much necessary in a DAC... It is pretty much impossible to design a practical reconstruction filter to use with non-oversampled 44k content that doesn't introduce various audible artifacts. And, since oversampling eliminates these issues quite effectively, and clearly "solves way more problems than it creates", oversampling is clearly a good idea. (When oversampling is used in a DAC, it is generally not intended to make music sound better, but to sidestep issues that would otherwise make the music sound worse.) And, that being the case, I guess it's possible that one of the huge list of filters that HQPlayer offers will turn out to be more accurate than the one in your DAC... And, THAT being the case, assuming that it were possible to actually figure out which was the most accurate... (Although, to be quite blunt, the guys who design DACs are pretty sharp, so the one that's built into your DAC might actually be the best option after all.) However I cannot rule out the possibility that some other choice COULD result in an overall improvement in system accuracy... But, personally, to me, once you cross the line of being unable to determine when something is actually an improvement and when it's just a variation... I tend to feel like I've progressed uncomfortably far down that rabbit hole... and I'm seeing daylight receding dangerously far in the distance behind me... At which point I try to turn off the computer and listen to some music. Thanks for the suggestion, but FWIW I have been an Audirvana user since its inception many years ago and still continue to use to this day. Have been doing computer based audio since the first OS X version of Mac using iTunes back in those days as it was the only jukebox readily available until Foobar came along on the windows platform. Have also spent a considerable amount of time looking into HQ Player/Roon but mostly HQP and decided it's just not a road I want to go down. Audirvana Origin provides all I need, at least for now, and the UI is good enough for what I use it for which primarily audio files on storage. As a side note I have yet to hear upsampling provide better audio, different yes, but not better to me and it certainly isn't for lack of experimenting with it either. It's all subjective though. But your comments regarding Roon sound quality vs either of the other two reflects everything else I have read or heard about it. Point well taken. Apparently I must have given the impression of being a neophyte with digital audio, but not the case with me. Been at for decades. How does accuracy sound? To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is and my goal has always been to put together a system that sounds “real” when playing acoustic music. Of course, there are many many reasons systems cannot be perfectly accurate including the source. In my experience Audirvana and HQPlayer sound better than Roon. That is to say I like the sound better. Who knows which software is the most accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 25, 2023 4:03:16 GMT -5
How does accuracy sound? To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is and my goal has always been to put together a system that sounds “real” when playing acoustic music. Of course, there are many many reasons systems cannot be perfectly accurate including the source. In my experience Audirvana and HQPlayer sound better than Roon. That is to say I like the sound better. Who knows which software is the most accurate. WOW - fbczar! This is a GREAT post - one of the best I've EVER read on the Lounge. Is "accuracy" truth to the original acoustic performance? Is it truth to the original, unmastered recording tape? Is it truth to the commercial recording release? Or is it truth to what makes the recording sound most like live music in YOUR room and to YOUR ears? There are WORLDS of potential in the different options. And one can be a "purist" to ANY of the choices with arguable justification. Like you, I think that I fall primarily into the group of "true believers" that support the last option This is why I'm perfectly willing to listen to (and in many cases, prefer) my audio amigo's "remastering" of music in his library. Are his choices superior to those made by the commercial mastering engineer? For his room, and to his ears, they ARE! Thanks again for your thoughtful and beautifully stated question. As an audio writer, I'm green with envy. Glenn Young |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Feb 25, 2023 8:43:52 GMT -5
How does accuracy sound? To me the closer a live recording sounds to a live concert the more accurate it is and my goal has always been to put together a system that sounds “real” when playing acoustic music. Of course, there are many many reasons systems cannot be perfectly accurate including the source. In my experience Audirvana and HQPlayer sound better than Roon. That is to say I like the sound better. Who knows which software is the most accurate. WOW - fbczar ! This is a GREAT post - one of the best I've EVER read on the Lounge. Is "accuracy" truth to the original acoustic performance? Is it truth to the original, unmastered recording tape? Is it truth to the commercial recording release? Or is it truth to what makes the recording sound most like live music in YOUR room and to YOUR ears? There are WORLDS of potential in the different options. And one can be a "purist" to ANY of the choices with arguable justification. Like you, I think that I fall primarily into the group of "true believers" that support the last option This is why I'm perfectly willing to listen to (and in many cases, prefer) my audio amigo's "remastering" of music in his library. Are his choices superior to those made by the commercial mastering engineer? For his room, and to his ears, they ARE! Thanks again for your thoughtful and beautifully stated question. As an audio writer, I'm green with envy. Glenn Young + fbczar Okay you guys went down the rabbit hole, not me ... but I'm following!  #1 ... was the recording made all at once in a space that was acoustically appropriate for live performance and recorded in such away that the performance was captured (i.e. not close-miked and remixes in a studio; not a recording of totally amplified music ... acoustic instruments only)? If so, then you have a chance to evaluate whether it sounds like a live performance in your room. Otherwise, add another dozen variables to Glenn's list. I listened to this yesterday and it solidly passes the test ... and that was with the 5.1 version ... I would love to get the Bluray with Atmos. Notice how Morten Lindberg does his live Atmos recording.     p.s. with a good recording, listening in my room sounds better than 90% of live performances that I've been to. |
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Feb 25, 2023 11:29:13 GMT -5
I prefer my sound system sounding more like an studio console room than a live performance. Except for classical music and such.
|
|
