Sound quality of Roon

@troidelover1499 To add to my post above, I guess I should ask - is there a particular unit you are looking to use that would act as a Roon core? I would suggest refraining from using an existing laptop or computer as they typically introduce noise into the equation. And you should not need to invest in a tablet if you have a capable smartphone that the Roon app can run on. 

I am sad I am this late to the game on this thread. It’s been a busy week for me. I agree with many individual points I read through this thread, but I thought it might be helpful to summarize it all into a single stream of thoughts.

I whole-heartedly agree that Roon as a software platform is not “supposed” to have a sound. But everything does. That said, it’s sound is indescribable because as others say it is coupled with the hardware and software architectures that are used to run it.

Just as any other interface, Roon has its own memory requirements. Unlike other installable platforms, it requires some more modern capabilities like graphics with OpenGL, and if you plan to use HQPlayer in partnership to upsample your files through Roon (a fairly popular direction for many), then the hardware requirements become even more intensive. When processing increases, it will “generally” introduce more noise into the system. But not in all cases. This will be a major argument for people who opt against Roon - that it is process-hungry, and that it is easier to reach an outcome with Roon that is noisier than other platforms. I often find myself in this boat, but there are some very good solutions that implement Roon properly, including servers like the Grimm MU1 and the Pink Faun 2.16 Ultra, both of which reside north of $10K. But what does that say? Nothing more than the total outcome with Roon depends on the surrounding hardware and software architectures as mentioned above.

The question could then become “How does Roon sound at certain price points”? This allows us to look past just Roon and into the remainder of the streamer/server solution. Too many times Roon is paired with less than optimal hardware which then results in a weaker performance overall. Roon’s own servers, ROCKs and NUCs do not provide the same level of performance as the units mentioned higher above. But do they sound bad? It’s all relative. They will still sound CONSIDERABLY better than the streamer / server inside the Bluesound Node N130 or Bluesound Vault, but they will likely not replace a mid-high-end vinyl rig for many (though it might if convenience is more important than sound quality). But with some units, Roon is good enough to be the primary vehicle for delivering a source.

Yes, Roon’s user interface and smooth experience are a big benefit to it as no other proprietary softwares are as easy to use or sexy to look at. But I do believe there are many excellent options offered where a manufacturer’s software platform is tightly coupled with the hardware that it is designed to run on, while also requiring less processing power overall to run. I also don’t think a subscription should be necessary to pay for the experience. This is why I’ve chosen the Aurender N30SA as my personal reference, and why when I started a high end audio business in April I became an authorized dealer for them.

There is not one “best” solution on the streaming/serving market, and luckily there are many good to great ones!

And @sonicfanatic what exactly do you need corroborated? That the quality of a streamer / server will advance the quality of the final sonic outcome?

@sonicfanatic I always say bits are not just bits. Yes 0s and 1s are passed from a source and received at the destination, but the final result also considers timing (clocking) and the amount of noise (jitter, interference, power supply ripples, you name it) that is introduced into the signal alongside it. Better streamers/servers do a better job of improving the timing and reducing noise (while hopefully also introducing a more delightful user experience with its platform, but that’s not always the case). It has nothing to do with the resolution of the signal, but in the clarity, purity, and integrity of it.

I am hoping the community can corroborate this as you are requesting, but many threads on this forum already demonstrate how people are getting better results from their streamer upgrades, and why many manufacturers offer different tiers of performance in their streamer/server solutions at different price points, such as Innuos, Roon, Auralic, Aurender, Wolf Systems and others. Even NAD, as they own Bluesound still has their own units (The discontinued M50.2 server/streamer was my step up from the Bluesound Vault, and it was exceptionally better. Stereophile rated it a Class A component).

@sonicfanatic "Timing" does not result in music going faster or slower - it is more about the interpretation of the data which as a result makes imaging more solid, or in the case of poor timing/clocking, makes the imaging sound more flabby or loose. So improved timing simply helps the signal produce sound that snaps/gels together.

The same paradigm applies to photography. Think of it as a lens that can produce an image that is completely in focus vs one that is just ever-so-slightly off focus that you might not really notice unless you had the two images side by side. Or even two lenses that may be equal in quality (Canon vs Nikon top of the lines). When people shoot with them, they perceive those images to be the best reproduction to what their eyes can see. But sometimes those manufacturers can bring new innovations to those lenses that improve upon the focus and clarity, even if used on the same camera body which produces the same image resolution.

Timing is one issue, based on clocking from the source (server/streamer), in the DAC, and the cable in between. For more fun, different digital interfaces (USB vs SPDIF) prioritize their clocks from different places. USB uses the DACs clock, whereas AES prioritizes the source’s clock. Some DACs will still reclock a SPDIF signal, and this can result in both great and poor outcomes, depending on how good the clock from the source already is. Many people don’t like the USB interface because it tends to be noisier, even if the DAC offers incredible clocking. This is typically due to lack of isolation in the ports and circuitry, and the fact that most USB cables are powered, carrying 5VDC in parallel conductors with the digital signal. So what one might gain from clocking they may lose in noise.

Noise is a whole other issue. Much noise in digital is indescribable. It’s not that you hear the noise like white noise, but it does cause some distortion to the output and you will know when you hear less noise in comparison. Lower noise reduces fatigue when listening over time, and with digital sources lower noise also tends to shift the tonal balance to feel more natural because it tames some of the fatiguing peaks and allows you to hear more, easier, and do so in a more relaxed way.

With this in mind, even though SPDIF sources are generally limited to 192khz resolution, many people prefer this interface because of the improved clocking and reduction and noise compared to a higher resolution signal such as a USB which can deliver 768khz of resolution, but at times with shortcomings due to noise and timing. Some DACs are designed without USB in mind because of this principle, like Berkeley’s reference which are around ~$25K, or the Aqua Formula xHD at around ~$13-15K. They prefer to offer a max resolution of ~192khz.

@fastfreight ​​​​@wsrrsw I switched switches myself (pun intended). Went from an EtherRegen powered by a Farad Super3 LPS to a Synergistic Research Ethernet Switch UEF and there was a notable improvement in difference of the palpability, smoothness, and body of the digital signal.