My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!

I used to link comparisons of songs on different speakers, electronics, cables.  However, most of your present posts and YT videos are devoted to your discussions.  You used to do lots more videos, so it was easy for me to do this.  You have your valid business reasons for your new style, based on YT income, but any real audiophile knows that talk is cheap--it is all about the listening.  That's one of the main attributes of the audiophile--he must listen for himself, and not completely trust the statements from anyone.  We can respect your statements of your findings, and that is useful, but ultimately what made your reputation were your A/B videos, which are the most useful of all.

Magazines are solely devoted to talk, talk, talk, blah, blah, blah.  No sound videos.  Aside from the bias from manufacturer ads, their usefulness is limited by lack of sound videos.

grey9hound,

"Probably closer to 94db-96db. like the...4 way ......

FOCAL--GRANDE UTOPIA EM EVO

That is the new speaker he has in his room."

I believe the only issue with that is WC mentioned that the speaker is under $100k MSRP, and that Focal speaker is ~$140K.

Dave

JA Pearl Graphene.  How many places can you hear these, other than at the odd show?

"When people add their preamp, they are in effect using TWO preamps in tandem. This is true at all price levels. The laws of physics don’t change with money spent."

Viber’s comment shows his lack of understanding, because almost all quality dacs with volume controls have the option to bypass the variable output circuit of the dac and output fixed volume. So it is NOT "two preamps in tandem," it is instead bypassing the inferior preamp of the dac for the superior preamp of the quality preamp.

So instead of being "true at all price levels," as Viber claims, it is not true at any of the quality price levels (which this thread concerns), though perhaps at Viber’s level it may apply, I don’t know. As as to his talk about laws of physics, because he doesn’t have his facts straight on one preamp versus two, that statement should also be ignored.

None of the above is intended to be presented in a disparaging way, but is necessary to correct Viber’s misinformation regarding preamps.

Changing gears, looks like my Gryphon guess for speakers was wrong.  I suppose I will guess Focal at this point

"JA Pearl Graphene.  How many places can you hear these, other than at the odd show?"

How about at a Dealer that carries Joseph Audio Speakers? Several dealers in my state that carry them

@kren0006 

"looks like my Gryphon guess for speakers was wrong"

And also me becoming a dealer for Gryphon ? 

😁

WC,

Just FYI....

For your Take 2 video, I think you have the second song listed as "Baby, I love your way", but it's actually "Keep on Loving You" by REO.

Dave

Haha, well that (statement about possibly becoming a Gryphon dealer) was something you mentioned as a possibility here on this thread as the reason why you didn’t reveal the mystery amps because you wanted to remain neutral at that time. I wouldn’t have just dreamed that up on my own

@thezaks 

Those songs are automatically populated by YouTube...I didn't write the name of the songs on there. 

@kren0006 

No desire as of today to become a Gryphon dealer but you never know what the future holds..

Good to know - thanks WC!

Dave

kren0006,

You could be correct, but I am not certain that the dac with the fixed volume output is really without the additional electronic stage.  Maybe such a dac DOES have the added stage, but has a potentiometer that merely selects unity gain without eliminating the stage.  The variable pot would be bypassed by using the fixed output, but the electronic stage after the dac chip could still be there.  I couldn't find info on various dac's that say whether you or I are correct.  Maybe several owners here can clarify.  

Merely from listening, adding the preamp reduces detail but increases output, so this suggests that the whole setup is like 2 tandem stages.  One way to answer this question is to see if using the fixed dac output into the preamp, and then comparing the variable dac output set to the same gain into the preamp produces different sound.  If they sound the same, then it is not possible to bypass the electronic stage of the dac, so I would be correct that adding the preamp is equivalent to using 2 tandem stages.

Can't you have an objective discussion of facts without your usual deprecating claims that I have a lack of understanding or your insinuations that I operate at a low level?  How dare you say that my statement should be ignored?  Instead, recognize that a serious discussion is appropriate, and that your claims need to be verified by actual users and/or knowledgeable technicians for the dac companies' product.

I might be incorrect about the actual facts, and people like thezaks can correct me without badmouthing me.  Jay can physically beat the heck out of you and me combined, but he doesn't go around with a bravado and insulting manner, but rather keeps the discussion dignified and respectful.

You present statements as facts (“laws of physics”) that are woefully misinformed. I simply point it out.
 

Because you didn’t seem to know that dacs had fixed and variable out options, I said I’m not sure if the dacs you’ve used had those options (because if they had I’d think you’d have known that)

@kren0006

“Viber’s comment shows his lack of understanding, because almost all quality dacs with volume controls have the option to bypass the variable output circuit of the dac and output fixed volume. So it is NOT "two preamps in tandem," it is instead bypassing the inferior preamp of the dac for the superior preamp of the quality preamp.”

Viber is not wrong.. The DAC still has an Analog output stage, it might bypass the volume control if one exists, but it still goes through the analog output section that amplifies the signal and affects the sound, just like a preamp.

nelson pass said it best, there is already too much output signal with most components, only attenuation is required, why muck with the signal or add more gain.

Of course every dac has an analog output stage! By definition (digital-to-analog), duh. And yes that is an important part in regards to quality of the dac.

But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether it is better to control volume changes with dac versus preamp.

It is well known that it is the volume control of the dac that is the most difficult to get right, and inevitably will be inferior to the volume controls in the preamps that WC uses. That inferior volume control of the dac is bypassed when a preamp is used, at least with quality dacs, and that is what we were referring to (of course if one chooses to use any dac to feed a line stage preamp it is necessary to utilize the analog output stage of the dac because, well, that’s how you get an analog input for the preamp after all)

And again, the reason I’m harping on this is because WC has made abundantly clear at least 20 times in this thread based on his actual experience listening to this stuff that a preamp is always better yet Viber continues to not respect WC and tell him he’s wrong about that. That’s disrespectful. Viber says I don’t respect him, but it’s he that doesn’t respect WC

Final video before the speaker unveil:

This video includes the VAC MASTER PREAMP. 

what speaker is it guys??

I’ve had 2 similar experiences using a preamp with 2 different DACs. My previous front end was composed of a Benchmark DAC3 HGC feeding directly Classé Audio CAM 600 Monoblocks which sounded reasonably good. I was always on the line regarding the use of a preamplifier, since logic indicates that a simpler audio path should sound better. I understand that a separate preamplifier should have better circuitry than the preamplifier section of a ‘midrange’ priced DAC.
 

Following the rave reviews of the Benchmark LA4 Line amplifier, and since it was reasonably priced, I decided to purchase one. Wow, what a difference in sound this LA4 made. Less edginess, natural timbre on acoustic instruments and expanded soundstage.

Last November, I replaced the Benchmark DAC with a Denafrips Terminator Plus and Denafrips Hermes DDC. Now we are talking! Again, expanded soundstage, walls of my dedicated listening room have disappeared, veil lifted, noise is reduced, bass is tighter, mid/high frequencies sounding even more natural and cohesive very like a camera in focus.

The Benchmark DAC includes a preamp section which needs to be set in Home Theater mode, if used with a preamplifier. Not totally sure what is going on from an internal circuit structure, but the DAC has a fixed analog output voltage and the DAC volume control is disabled.

The Denafrips DAC has no preamplifier section. It’s output feeds the Benchmark preamp directly.

In both cases, using a preamplifier made a significant improvement in sound quality. So totally in agreement with Jay’s findings. 

I won’t argue with people who use DAC direct because they know their system and I don’t. What I will say is I would NOT trade the extra 2% detail that a DAC will give you by going direct for benefits such as more control, more soundstage, more drive, etc etc.

Good post @mrdecibel 

kren0006,

You said, "And again, the reason I’m harping on this is because WC has made abundantly clear at least 20 times in this thread based on his actual experience listening to this stuff that a preamp is always better yet Viber continues to not respect WC and tell him he’s wrong about that. That’s disrespectful. Viber says I don’t respect him, but it’s he that doesn’t respect WC."

I don't expect you to waste time reviewing Jay's actual statements for his actual meaning.  We are both working people and have more important things to do with our time.  My understanding is that he said that dac direct reveals more detail, but he prefers the smoothness, spatiality and dynamics when adding the preamp.  He has a strong preference for that, yes.  But it is still a preference, and he always says about any component that this is just one man's opinion.

Mikem has verified my statement that the dac always uses an electronic stage, even if the volume control is bypassed using the fixed output.  In effect, adding the external preamp is the equivalent of using 2 tandem electronic stages, which cause loss of detail compared to using the 1 stage in the dac.  It is good to bypass any circuit, and listeners may find that using the fixed output of the dac enables more detail than using the variable output of the dac.  Yes, the volume control of the added preamp is probably better than that of the dac, but the listening findings of mrdecibel, willgolf and mikem confirm that the overall effect of adding the extra preamp stage is loss of detail/transparency in the music.  If you use the fixed output, you need a volume control from the added preamp.  These listeners find that the overall results show that eliminating the extra electronic stage of the preamp outweighs the benefits of the preamp's better volume control.

You have been incorrect on this issue.  No problem, but I didn't hurl any personal insults at you and just stated that other people's findings show that you are incorrect on this issue.  I used the word, "incorrect" but not "wrong" which has a connotation of moral negativity.  I don't say YOU or your statements should be ignored.  If someone is talking about something I am not interested in, I just ignore them, but I don't get nasty and yell that they should be ignored.  (A few years ago, you were even worse and said I should be REBUKED for my statement on a particular issue at that time).  If I disagree with their statements, I just explain why in an objective manner, using my listening experience or whatever technical knowledge I have--but I don't say that their different opinion should be ignored.  It is nice to have a written record of what the different opinions are, so they can be reviewed and considered at any time by those interested.

lol...🤯

@mrdecibel 

Great post.

@viber6 

Please, with due respect, just let it die.

mrdecibel

In the end, that is the way it has to be.  Unfortunately, your words of truth are lost on individual(s) incessantly attempting (unsuccessfully) to impose their views upon others. 

Viber, I know you are not an electrical engineer like I am, but what you are missing is that the dac direct cannot be used without using its inferior volume control. So the relevant comparison is not analog output stage of dac in isolation versus dac output stage and additional preamp, the comparison you are trying to draw -- that doesn’t even make any sense -- rather it is dac volume control versus preamp (the analog output stage of dac is always there either way, so that’s not germane to the comparison).

You are of course free to prefer the volume control of the dac, but it is not two preamps in tandem as you claim.

Don’t be so sensitive. If I was posting incorrect medical theories I’m sure you’d step in to point out when I’m wrong. I give you a pretty long leash and ignore most of the inaccurate statements you make, but when you continue to post dogmatic statements that are incorrect, I point them out. And when you go so far as to claim such is a "law of physics," yes, that is a statement that should be ignored - I stand by it.

@maxima95 

Well said.

mrdecibel is right on.  Base audio takes on real world experience and actually having tried things with same components or at least very similar components, not merely on theory or on how you wish the world ran. 

If you are not going to do that, at a minimum don't misrepresent those (like WC) who have done the trials, or continually tell him he's wrong about something he's done and you haven't.

kren0006,

Even engineers disagree about which factors are most important.  Pure scientists may look at things in isolation, but the job of the engineer is to use the science and balance the factors to design a complete product.  On this issue, the first pertinent factor is the transparency of the volume control, which is of course superior in the outboard preamp.  The second factor is the transparency of the added electronic stage of the outboard preamp.  My contention is that the loss of detail from the second factor is greater than the loss of detail from the first factor from its inferior volume control.  Many years ago when I discovered the Rane EQ, I first evaluated its transparency without the EQ settings, so I wanted to know how its transparency/neutrality/detail compared with the line stage of my Spectral DMC gamma preamp.   The Spectral had a good rotary volume control, but the cheap Rane used a crummy tiny control which is used in pro audio equipment.  I was shocked to find that the Rane used merely as a line stage without EQ, bettered the Spectral in the ways I mentioned.  The Rane with all its old fashioned parts had more purity of sound than the audiophile grade Spectral.  Amazing.  That was the beginning of my mistrust of most of the audiophile industry.  Some people have advised me to put in better quality electronic parts and a better volume control for my Rane, and I may do that one day.

Regardless of the technical discussion above, Jay said it best--

"I won’t argue with people who use DAC direct because they know their system and I don’t. What I will say is I would NOT trade the extra 2% detail that a DAC will give you by going direct for benefits such as more control, more soundstage, more drive, etc etc."  For his preferences, "I would not trade the extra 2% detail..." YES, correct and right for Jay.  For the preferences of myself, mrdecibel, willgolf and mikem, we choose dac direct and value the extra 2% more than the benefits from the added preamp.

Unlike the claims of maxima95, I don't impose my views on others, but simply point out how different preferences lead someone to different components that suit them best.

Since we are discussing using a DAC direct into an amp, having a volume control in the DAC is necessary, or controlling the volume in the digital domain. Lumin has adopted the Leedh Processing which is apparently a game changer in regulating output, 

• An innovative new digital volume adjustment algorithm that eliminates rounding errors.
• Modifies the digital signal amplitude exactly, without any changes to its shape and free from any kind of information loss.
• Uses more efficient whole number volume values to maintain audio information integrity during subsequent DAC conversion.
• Low processing power requirements free up cpu resources.
• Removes need for a pre-amplifier in more systems.
• Improves the quality of the signal into LUMIN Amp.
• A quote from a Lumin X1 review in 6 Moons, "the most impressive feature of the combo hid inside the X1 streamer with the new Leedh Processor obviating a preamplifier no matter how good."

klh007,

I don't understand Leedh processing, and I don't see how this solves the problem of loss of bits at low signal levels.  A CD playing full scale output (say 100 dB of music output) has 16 bits of resolution.  For a very quiet 22 dB output, that's a loss of 78 dB, which is 13 bits of resolution loss, down to a mere 3 bits of resolution left.  Even for a moderate level of 46 dB, that's a loss of 54 dB, or 9 bits, down to only 7 bits of resolution left.  I don't see how any digital volume control is better than analog at even moderate levels.

Jay,

The final take video sounds good, but I am not familiar with the songs, and I don't believe you played these songs on the XLF.  After you break in the new speaker and the new outlets, please play songs that you played on the XLF.  Since YT lists the songs, I'll try to help post links to videos from your channel, so we can compare the 2 speakers more easily.  The major variable will be the Furutech outlet vs the former outlet, but the differences in character between the 2 speakers should swamp the outlet differences.

viber6,

It really takes an expert to properly explain resolution and bit depth, hopefully there is someone qualified on this string that can more accurately explain why your rational is incorrect if I get it wrong.  But in my limited understanding I will try and partially explain.  For the record, you have already stated that you "do not understand one solution (Leedh) the problem of loss of bits at low levels."  And that you "don't see how any digital volume control is better than analog at even moderate levels."  So, I would appreciate it if you don't criticize my admittedly partial explanation of this issue with your limited understanding.  I will happily stand corrected from an expert for any mistakes that I make in my calculations...

One problem is that your rational does not allow for upsampling.  

It is quite easy to convert a 16 bit depth resolution to a 24 bit depth.  This involves only simple multiplication.  It is true that the first increase in bit depth does not in any way increase resolution... at that level.  At full output the analogue conversion redbook standard is +/- 2 volts so 65,536 digitally represents 2 volts at 16 bit and 16,777,216 represents 2 volts at 24 bit.  They are equal.  When the conversion from D to A occurs, both result in exactly the same instantaneous voltage level, without any complex DSP applied.  To make this conversion, you merely multiply every sample by 256.  No loss or gain occurs, only a difference in numeration.  

But since bits are relegated to either 1 or 0, you can't divide them.  What the increase in bit depth allows is for division to occur without loss.  You can then very accurately lower the volume significantly while maintaining excellent resolution.  16 bit resolution gives 65,536 levels at 2 volts, 24 bit resolution gives 16,777,216 levels at 2 volts.  You can then mathematically lower this amplitude by 256 times while still maintaining a higher bit depth than maximum redbook level of 16 bits which is actually only used at 100% output (effectively never).  Algorithms can deal quite well with any rounding errors as you reduce volumes i.e halving the volume with a digital number that is odd. This results in a potential maximum error of 1/16,777,216 of 2 volts error...  significantly below the threshold of hearing. 

It is true, that the information available does not increase resolution at the full level in the upsampling, but what it does is then allow volume adjustment with more increments without rounding errors.  I.e.  digital level 4000 in 16 bits (.122 volts output) becomes level 1,024,000 in 24 bits (also .122 volts output).  You can then reduce the volume 250 times for an lowered volume value of .000488 volt output level volts with a digital level of level of 4,096. So, 1/250 of the output while resolution is still effectively higher than with what you started (4000 increments below vs 4,096 levels below but at 1/250 of the volume.

Digital editing has been utilizing these mathematical formulas for decades.  In studios, every track is recorded for a maximum resolution then during mixing lowered to an appropriate level.  So when implemented properly, it is actually far easier to digitally reduce volume with minimal sonic impact than it is to do it in the analogue realm. If this type of dsp were not readily possible, quality digital mixing would be nearly impossible and while some might argue that digital anything is inferior to all analogue, there are other threads for that discussion as Jay only works in digital.  While you can accurately argue that information is still lost in this math, the information level lost is far lower than the base threshold set by redbook 16 bit depth.

In summary, the theoretical number of volume levels available through high bit depth digital is far higher than with what can be reasonably achieved in the analogue realm.  Perhaps not at 16 bit, but certainly at 24 bit. Once the volume adjustment has been achieved, you can then reduce the bit depth back to 16 bits if the DAC can't handle the higher bit depth but all high end DACs I am aware of, built in the last 30 years can handle these higher bit depths if not even more at 32 bits.

I hope this satisfactorily answers your "question".

Vac monoblocks are back from the dead after a 2 month hiatus. For the first time I partner them with the matching vac master Preamp.

This is such a different presentation than the Mephisto.

My thoughts to come soon!

Not sure if you all are having issues with tidal but right now I've been troubleshooting all day. It appears that the MQA format and Reebook are randomly skipping certain parts of random songs that I have played a million times. We tried everything possible but the issue happens sporadically. This does not happen at all with QOBUZ. By the way, this issue is happening through ROON only. 

How are you streaming? I know I've had a few times where Aurender needed to implement an update to get MQA files to play.

Taiko vía USB into MSB Reference and I'm using roon to stream tidal and QOBUZ. 

I am having the same issue with Roon. Tracks have random short skips. The issue really comes from Roon and not from my gear. Any Roon end device has the same problem…

Ok good. Now we know it's not our gear. This is a software issue. 

I have used Roon resident on a Nucleus+ extensively for more the one year. I use Cox Cable at 150 mb/sec, with data passing along via Wireworld Starlight 8 Ethernet cable from and to a Luxul AV switch and then onto a LUMIN T2 music server/DAC.  Never even once have I heard a Tidal track skip, even for a moment. 

psnyder149,

I need more time to consider all your numbers, but just for starters, I question the use of upsampling, which doesn't directly relate to my question.  If you record something at 16 bits and also at 24 bits, then the latter has more gradations of amplitude.  (There is more to psychoacoustically explain increased resolution than just amplitude variations. The sampling rate of 88 kHz vs 44 kHz may be a greater factor than the word length, or number of bits.  Jitter--variation of timing of these samples--may be the most important.  For simplicity, we can just discuss number of bits, for now).

The problem with upsampling is that it doesn't reveal more information.  If something is recorded with 16 bits and upsampled to 24 bits, you don't get the information content of the original recording at 24 bits.  Mere multiplication doesn't give the more sensitive gradations of the original 24 bit recording.  You can't invent information (artificial resolution) by just magnifying the numbers.  Similar reasoning about "oversampling" (if that is the right term) from 44 to 88 kHz, doesn't produce the information content of the original 88 kHz recording.

To start out with a 24 bit recording, you can truncate to 16 bits various ways.  I agree that more numbers in the original 24 bit word can more accurately round down to 16 bits, than the original 16 bit recording.  But I believe that upsampling from 16 to 24 bits won't produce the information content of the original 24 bit word, or even the rounded down 16 bit word.

I stand by my previous post, which doesn't directly relate to your discussion about upsampling.  To me, the issue is whether a low level digital signal with profound loss of information from reducing bits down to only 3 or 7 in the examples I cited, is better or worse for resolution than the low level analog signal with the noise.  The low level analog signal has a very high variation in amplitude, maybe like 30 bits of digital equivalent.  If the analog hiss noise is reasonably low, far below the signal level, the analog signal can have greater resolution than the digital signal.  But if there is lots of hiss, then analog is worse.

We probably agree that the best scenario is a 24 bit original recording, played back using a dac that accepts 24 bits.  Then the 3 bits from the original 16 bit recording becomes 11 bits from the original 24 bit recording, and the 7 bits becomes 15 bits, yielding much better resolution.  But if you start with a 16 bit CD recording, whether original or downsampled from the 24 bit master, you are left with only 3 or 7 bits at those low signal levels, pretty bad.

Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote or you can’t or won’t allow yourself to understand. I will try and make it simple for you 1/1 = 1. And  1/1 x 256/256= 1. So if you multiply every value by 256 and still keep the voltage equivalent of 1 the same as the new 256 then you have not changed anything at the current output value.  They are identical in output.  You have not changed the resolution at that value even though one is at 16 bit and the other is at 24 bit.  do you follow?
 

But…! Because a 1 in binary is not divisible by anything you can only go from 1 to 0 which is not a volume control, it is an on/off switch.  In other words, you cannot express a fraction of 1 bit in binary code.  But once you multiply the 1 by 256 while maintaining their equivalent associated voltage you can now divide what was previously on/off into 256 discreet levels, each of which has a value of 1/256 of the voltage so now instead of an on/off switch represented by a 1 or a 0, you now have a volume control with 256 discreet levels.  This is accomplished with absolutely no DSP except for multiplying every value on the recording by 256 and the programming the DAC to know that the maximum value of all 16 bits being 1’s is 2 volts as well as all 24 bits being 1’s is 2 volts in 24 bits.
 

Your only limitations are whether or not the DAC has the software to do this simple conversion and whether the device has the capability of reproducing the smaller graduations of a 24 bit signal. The other limitation is a simple algorithm for dealing with rounding error. One example of an algorithm would be if remainder is .5 and below, it is represented by a 0 and if it is greater than .5 it is a one, but this rounding error is only in the last digit so the potential error is 1/512 of 16million… a very small error.  It would be a bit silly to design a 24 bit DAC that couldn’t accurately accomplish this.  Because why would someone design a 24 bit DAC that couldn’t output the signal from a 24 bit DAC,.. there are other reasons why higher bit depth and up sampling are beneficial, but they are not important to the question of lossless, effective volume control.

so in summary, you can design a very effective lossless digital volume control by increasing the bit depth (upscaling) of a 16 bit record to a 24 bit signal. 

Careful, don't border on nastiness like you know who.  I accept your numbers, and I know about rounding errors, but that is not relevant to my statements in my previous post.  Your discussion is interesting, but it is not about addressing fundamental issues of analog vs digital volume controls I raised.  FACT--a low level analog signal has an infinite number of bit equivalents--that's what analog is.  The problem with analog is the storage capacity of magnetic tape and playback of the tape on a physical tape machine. Analog hiss is certainly noisy, and the issue is the tradeoff between the masking effects of hiss and the benefits of an infinite number of amplitude gradations.  Even 24 bit digital for a full scale 2V signal gets reduced to 11 bits or less for a very low signal.  There is no hiss, but the disadvantage of digital is the low number of bits for that low level signal.

Many analog listeners have noted its increased resolution compared to digital.  In fact, they praise 24 bit and higher sampling rates compared to CD, as resulting in its "analog-like" sound.

I don't post much here but have been a long time follower of this thread back from 2016. I'm a long time audiophile from back in the late 60's with my first system being a pair of Altec a7"s and a JBL SA600 and enjoy reading someone else's audio journey.  I have enjoyed your audio quest but am forced to take this thread off my reading list.  I'm tired of Viber's domination of this thread, his expose of fringe viewpoints and endless drivel; arguing with him is like trying to reform a Q'Anon supporter, he posts more than the OP and takes away any continuity.   I'm sure I am not the only one feeling like this.  I will still follow you on  YouTube  and wish you the best on your odyssey.

@viber6 

I typically let the thread "cleanse" itself and I have been making a huge effort of not bumping heads with anyone as I did in my early days. 

Although I really appreciate your passion for music and the fact that you are a great violinist (Steve from GT audio validated this), it might be more beneficial if you begin to take your strong opinions to private messages if it's going to be an ongoing "ordinance" that the general public on here doesn't want to hear. 

Sometimes saying less is actually saying more. 

Please know that it's not personal at all ,but when the thread begins to get derailed by having debates about specific things that often aren't really contributing to the thread's organic growth then i have to become the moderator (job that I don't want). 

Jay 

Thank you, Jay!  And now (hopefully) back to discussions focused on equipment.

Yes, thank you Jay.  It's a shame you have to continually do this.

@jmeyers 

@ron17 

@jays_audio_lab 

Agree with you all.

I was having the same problem with Roon a couple of days ago.  Intermittent skipping of notes caused me each time to do a double-take.  I have not cycled through the Roon owners forum to see if there are any issues yet.