Looking to replace my Roon Nucleus. Have read many of posts regarding the various options; Innuos, Antipodes, SGC, and Salk. Definitely quite a wide price range for these different units. If the job of the server is to send the digital signal to the DAC; does the server really influence the sound?
I haven’t an explanation, but have theorized that LDS manages the substantial buffer in the Auralic better than does Roon.
When using Roon Qobuz content is requested by the Roon player on the Core, and then multicast to Roon endpoints (like the Auralic) using RAAT as a protocol on the network.
When queuing Qobuz content using the Auralic Lightning app the Auralic Aries' built-in player software requests the content directly, so it is a much simpler process, with fewer hops, and no concern for the overall quality of the upstream hardware (since the Qobuz content is spread across servers no one knows exactly where it is coming from).
OP, it sounds like what you are looking for is an improvement in sound quality by replacing the Roon Core you are currently using (Nucleus) with a better one. As far as I am aware the best products for this job are the Antipodes line of music servers. You can purchase just the server to run Roon Core for Roon endpoints on the network, and they also offer both separate endpoint hardware (players) as well as music servers with integrated players.
Also what would help to guide you in the right direction is whether or not you are using the Roon Nucleus as a Core (server and player) connected directly to your DAC via USB, or if you are using the Nucleus as a Core with endpoint (i.e. Roon Ready) hardware built into your DAC, or with some other endpoint hardware other than the Nucleus.
Roon isn‘t anywhere near the sound quality of the Squeeebox server InnuOS uses: all the plug-ins are detrimental to SQ. This has been covered on quite a few threads on this forum. And I am talking of InnuOS servers running Roon, never mind the Roon Nucleus which is barely better than a PC.
At the time, I was running Roon Core on an optimized Mac mini and using the Auralic Aries G2 streamer. I had (at the time) both Tidal and Qobuz though I’ve since dropped Tidal as Qobuz sounds better and their library is satisfactory.
I honestly don’t recall if I compared files off of my Mac Mini hard drive over Roon and Lightning DS (“LDS”), but music streamed from Qobuz sounded significantly better on LDS than via Roon.
I haven’t an explanation, but have theorized that LDS manages the substantial buffer in the Auralic better than does Roon. In usage, I don’t really care why as even though Roon as a library management system is better, LDS is plenty good enough.
@OP, After having a Bluesound system, I recently moved to Innuos. That required a new app to stream music. I bought Squeeze Control, but found Roon to be superior. -Especially in the user interface.- I don't think you'll find a better one. Bob
I appreciate all of the feedback ( no pun intended). It seems the deeper you get into digital, the more the marketing takes over and the truth gets lost. I would drop Roon except it irks me to have to drop a "lifetime" subscription. Another question for the crowd. Has anyone heard the Wyred 4 Sound servers? Besides being dollar limited, I have space issues as well and would go better with a compact foot print. Thanks M
Files streamed via Auralic’s lighting DS application sounded significantly better than the same via Roon.
I'm just curious if the files were local (i.e. on a NAS or computer) or did you use a streaming service like Tidal or Qobuz?
In either case you heard the difference between the Roon player software (on whatever you were using to act as the Roon Core) and the player software embedded in the Auralic streamer. The Lightning DS app is just a control point software, meaning you made your song selections using the app, but the software doing the playback itself is in the Auralic (the App just provides control and feedback, not playback in other words).
I've had similar experiences so it's not surprising to see them confirmed by others!
@Ironlung makes good points and provides useful clarification, too.
And, I would agree with the last sentiment he/she shares: “Personally, I would avoid Roon altogether if SQ is actually your ultimate goal.
I have direct experience w/ Roon vs other software going into the same hardware. Files streamed via Auralic’s lighting DS application sounded significantly better than the same via Roon. I dropped my subscription. As an interface - Roon is great. As for sound quality - not so much.
If the job of the server is to send the digital signal to the DAC
That is not the job of the server, that is the job of the player/renderer (an application layer software) and it's associated hardware interface capabilities (i.e. USB, SPDIF, AES/EBU, Ethernet stream).
A server does what it implies. It serves files to any number of potential endpoints, each of which can have their own unique player/rendering software.
With respect to Roon, a Roon Core contains both the server and the player. So your music "server" in the case of Roon, is also your music "player". The Roon Core sends real-time audio playback out over your LAN to a Roon certified endpoint. The server/player/endpoint scenario with Roon is therefore a bit more complicated, because essentially the server and the player are the same device; the Roon endpoint has the ability to "capture" the real-time audio playback happening on the Core and sync the file playback to the DAC, over the network. (What they call RAAT, which is basically a glorified version of AirPlay given the above analysis).
In this case the difference between endpoints is going to be related to how they interface with the DAC, since the player is identical between Roon endpoints.
I suppose what I am trying to point out is that because of the confusion surrounding all of these terms and products, speaking about differences in sound quality pretty much ends up becoming more or less a moot point when it comes to "servers", especially if you are using Roon. Personally I would avoid Roon altogether if SQ is actually your ultimate goal.
A server’s quality depends on noise elimination - from the ethernet in (RFI/EMI galvanic and filteror through optical) - from USB out (ground noise and RFI/EFI from power supply, vibration)
Again, the confusion between the player/endpoint and the server here needs to be cleared up. A device with a USB output to a DAC is a renderer/player/endpoint, not a music server. It may be a component shared within the same chassis as a server, and is typically a simple piece of software on a relatively simple architecture.
Also the idea that the quality of a server is only based on elimination of noise is a highly flawed viewpoint. The software component of the server is likely just as (if not more) important than the hardware in terms of SQ.
My mistake in the use of the term server instead of streamer. That said, the OP was asking about variations in sound between Innuos, Antipodes, etc - which I believe are streamers. And, so the question was posed about the differences in sound quality between such units and I was attempting to be helpful by sharing my direct experience.
However, the Auralic server easily bested the MiND server built into the Sim unit.
It seems the term "server" is being misused here.
What @mgrif104 compared was two different software player/renderers and how they handle a buffered audio stream, from a server somewhere else. The Sim Audio does not have a server, nor do the Auralic products. The above statement is simply not true.
In an attempt to clarify for the OP - the term "server" refers to the computing device that the file you are streaming originates from, as well as the software component necessary for the hardware to provide the file to an endpoint using some such or another protocol.
The reasons servers can vary in terms of sound quality can be due to many different things, however in a nutshell the less processing/manipulation of the data happening in the server's software-based component typically has the largest impact.
In other words, your question is about the affect the "server" has on the SQ, not the player or endpoint, and so the differences between the two should be clarified.
I switched from a Synology server when something happened to it a Melco N100. The Melco is also a player. I had been running the Synology with a Bryston player, and the Melco sounds very different than the Synology/Bryston combination. I have two other mid fi , HT systems in the home. Using the Melco as a NAS only, and playing the files through an Oppo 203 and a Bluesound Node2, I can’t detect much of a difference from the Synology server. Not a perfect experiment, but I would have to conclude that the player makes the bigger difference sonically than the server
Though it doesn’t intuitively make sense, my own experience is that servers do sound different. Of course, there are plenty of forum participants who claim otherwise, so YMMV. Like Fuzztone noted, they’re not big differences, but better systems will definitely be rewarded.
What do I hear as those differences? In A/B comparisons of units I own(ed), the better units offer more spatial information - i.e. depth and width. Others talk about a lower noise floor and more musical detail.
Fyi: I own the Auralic Aries G2. During home audition, I compared it against an Aurender N100H which I owned and a Bluesound Node. I’ve also directly compared the Auralic feeding a Simaudio 390 Preamp/DAC with a built in MiND streaming function. That audition was quite revealing as I was able to run both streamers parallel and merely switch inputs on the preamp w/ the remote. I was impressed with the Sim 390’s preamp and DAC for the price - it’s quite good. However, the Auralic server easily bested the MiND server built into the Sim unit.
Then again - regardless of what I or others say - the only way for you to really know is to audition a unit (a fully broken in unit) in your system.
@OP I also thought streamers shouldn't make a difference, but my friend @ctsooner, has found this to not to be the case. So, different brands of streamers do have an inherent 'sound'. B
Going out on a limb: InnuOS more analogue, Lumin very detailed and analytical, Auralic slightly more subdued than in your face, although much depends on the DAC and personal preferences. I am sure others will disagree on this.
A server’s quality depends on noise elimination - from the ethernet in (RFI/EMI galvanic and filteror through optical) - from USB out (ground noise and RFI/EFI from power supply, vibration)
There is quite a bit of debate whether AES/EBU or SP/DIF or fibre optic or ethernet output to the DAC is preferable, a small group argue for I2S connections because of their more direct access to the DAC’s converter chips. The debate is wide open and while asynchronous USB in theory has the advantage of slaving the server’s clocking to the DAC, much depends on the quality of the individual implementation.
Generally InnuOS, Auralic and Lumin are viewed as the leaders, ultimately unless you use Roon the software and its consumer interface seem decisive.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
