@mahler123 SQ quality is not an issue at the moment but could be if I use something else other than the native app that T + A provides. Moving away from app could reduce SQ, stay the same or increase. T + A app works fine. It’s just the user experience sucks. Information it provides is limited for albums and songs compared to others apps. Moving from away from native app there numerous routes to go and bridges to cross. . Hence the on going debate.
I really do appreciate folks contributions. It helps me in studying what are my best options. It also tells me I have much home work to do. Cost benefit comes into play too.
Hope I’m writing this correctly.
|
Has the OP tried third party apps? He sounds like his SQ isn’t the issue. I like mConnect but there are many out there.
|
@v-fi
The general consensus (not unanimous) is that Lightning DS makes the music more edgy, lit up, with a focus on detail, while using Roon is more natural, relaxed, organic. Which one is "better" will always depend on your preferences and system.
You have definitely chosen words that put a positive spin towards Roon.
I just notice a lot of people parrot what they have read on forums about Roon not sounding as good, but when I have a direct chat with them it turns out many haven't even tried it, or tried it once many years ago and are still stuck on that opinion.
This is not a summary of others, or forum posters or reviewers, this is my personal comparisons of what I hear in my system: I don't know Lightning DS, but I know Squeeze.
Squeeze has more clarity and separation/space, it is more airy, and yes detailed, which some feel is a negative word, but when I use this word it means it is easier to differentiate between instruments and follow lower level information. Musical information becomes more unraveled and easier to pick out. If one hears this detail as "edgy" then perhaps the extra resolution is revealing some part of chain that is the weak link. Bass is tighter and more defined- lets use the word detailed again here. Articulate is another good word to use here. Some may find this "lean".
Roon on the other hand is thicker and more robust around the middle, some may call this "warmth", or more "natural" but bass is definitely more opague. Mids and treble still have good detail but perhaps a little smoother, softened or less extended. Relaxed is a word you chose that I can agree with, but I can also call this less resolving.
Between the two I would say Squeeze is the more natural and organic one. It sounds more like the real thing and less like a muffled version.
Does one like Telefunkens or Mullards?
This is what I heard last year, and it still is true as of this date, perhaps not quite as much- I can't go back in time and compare then to now, and the system is always evolving.
However, if the recording is not of a quality to match, Roon can be more enjoyable- and I think this is the key- IMO Roon is a little more rounded and a little softer to appeal to a wider audience, because not everyone has $50K+ systems. From what I have seen lately Roon has put most of their resources into this ARC option, and this is not for discerning audiophiles, this is for the masses.
Now having said that, the delta is small, not as big as my exaggerated words above make it sound, and as I mentioned this delta is probably not as large as it used to be, and yes I still use Roon the majority of the time because it still sounds wonderful, and the UI is much superior, but if I am in the mood for the absolute best sound on a particular recording squeeze is what I use.
JPlay will be tried eventually, along with Audirvana- choice is good!
|
@mgrif104 Sorry to frustrate, that was certainly not my intent. And the last thing I want to do is argue about audio opinions. I just notice a lot of people parrot what they have read on forums about Roon not sounding as good, but when I have a direct chat with them it turns out many haven't even tried it, or tried it once many years ago and are still stuck on that opinion.
For myself, I have definitely compared many platforms and found Roon to sound best, in my system of course which is the only one I can really speak on. But among the circle of fellow Auralic users I chat with, the vast majority seems to agree. The general consensus (not unanimous) is that Lightning DS makes the music more edgy, lit up, with a focus on detail, while using Roon is more natural, relaxed, organic. Which one is "better" will always depend on your preferences and system.
I agree that Roon does have some variability, but also feel that is mainly solved now by the fact that you can just use the official Roon Nucleus devices and get on the same page as what the Roon devs intended. Or, you can at least use the Nucleus as a yardstick by which to spec out your own hardware so it matches or surpasses those capabilities. Meanwhile Roon's certification process, as frustratingly slow as it sometimes is, exists to guarantee that each component plays nicely with their software and keeps everything in spec. So there really isn't as much variability issues as there maybe was some years ago.
Are there instances where I might choose something else over Roon? Of course, depending on the hardware involved. But my experience is that most often Roon sounds more natural to me than the others, and I again feel like it gets a bad rap for being so slick in terms of features and user interface. When so many people throw out the whole "everyone knows" mentality about how Roon is always inferior, I feel it dissuades people who should really give it a shot. They might prefer it as many of us do, and it's free to try so why not?
|
@v-fi
This is a somewhat frustrating response. So you don’t know how or why there might be a difference and therefore dismiss the relevant experience of many others. It’s a complex area. If you’re seeking a high performance system, not exploring this seems shortsighted.
Roon is akin to Microsoft Windows which must run on a huge variety of hardware and companion software platforms. Just as windows does not perform equally well across all those platforms, so too does Roon have to address the variables of cache, processing speed, available system resources, etc.
Some streamers are designed to only work with Roon (i.e Grimm MU1 and Synergistic Research Voodoo). However, many others have native applications to handle the music library management. Those of us with such equipment have experienced a wide variety of results with Roon. And, many of that group have experienced diminishing sound quality with Roon.
For me - I had already paid for a subscription to Roon and was using it happily. On a whim, I compared the same streamed file on Qobuz via Roon vs via Lightning DS (the native application of Auralic devices). I was disappointed in the difference. I loved pretty much everything else about Roon - particularly the interface. But it just didn’t sound as good. I am far from alone in that experience. I have since moved on from Auralic as using it to feed my T+A DAC didn’t sound nearly as good as using the streaming client built in to the unit in direct comparison.
To be fair - I haven’t tried Roon with my T+A streaming DACs. But I also know from the experience of others that it is unlikely to offer me the best sounding option. And, given the high level of performance of the T+A gear, why should we choke it?
|
Another vote for Roon. Some people claim they hear a downgrade in quality when using Roon, I have not experienced that myself. And I don't see why or how that would be the case.
The Roon team is incredibly knowledgeable and focused on delivering a pristine signal with dedicated audio gear. Meanwhile a lot of other factory playback solutions simply use existing network protocol like UPnP or DLNA. Those were never intended for high end audio so why would they sound better? I think some people are naturally inclined to assume the smoother, better looking experience must somehow come at a price. I disagree though.
|
@mclinnguy +1
Good stuff and helpful, too. Congrats on the new DAC 200.
I’ll get my 2nd system settled in about 6 weeks and will give PGGB a try. It should work well in my system with the built in NAA on my unit. I’ll save a few steps.
Best,
|
Because numerous variables are involved with streamers, software, and hardware, I need to take a slow approach to this. You guys have opened my eyes to the various possibilities. Appreciate your time.
I get it. I first read about PGGB about 3 years ago, then it was just an idea from a couple of electrical engineer's about how to upsample PCM for the boys with the Chord Dave's, similar to Rob's M Scaler. Then it expanded to other player's like Holo's, Gustard's, and now it is available as DSD upsampling for the strong DSD player's.
Audio nirvana in small steps, a piece at a time, over the course of many years. the journey is typically more enjoyable than the destination.
|
Hey @mgrif104,
Saw one used so decided to snap it up a few weeks back. Always had these memories of how much better some DSD files sounded with my former exaSound DAC compared to "regular" files, so was always curious to try a higher-end dedicated DSD converter again to compare to a decent PCM player in the Weiss. I am keeping the Weiss, just building a second system and the Weiss is a player so I can feed Roon to both with the K50. Wasn’t happy about going back to a USB cable, but such is life.
PGGB IMO is definitely the way to go, here is why: HQ player is embedded in the Antipodes, and I tried it in the past (with PCM) and was underwhelmed- too fiddly and the several filters I tried were no better than Squeeze, so why pay the money for it was my decision. I recently tried HQ again to upsample to DSD on the fly after getting the DAC 200 but the Antipodes is built for sound quality, not processing power, so upsampling to DSD128 on the fly with HQ Player had the cpu at 80%, whereas when I play an upsampled DSD512 file (via Squeeze or Roon) it is at 0%.
Upsampling on the fly kind of defeats the purpose of having a low-noise streamer.
And then I tried PGGB. I heard a few DSD 512 files, my jaw dropped, and I immediately bought the license. Hearing a redbook file upsampled to DSD512 was shocking- either with Roon or Squeeze. Makes the difference between the two softwares seem irrelevant by comparison. To confirm I am not using HQ Player at all, I am playing these DSD 512 files back with Roon or Squeeze, both work fine but Roon is pickier with some of them. I have not yet tried HQ Player as just a player option playing the DSD files- either with Roon as the server software or HQ Player as server and player software.
I have many old CD’s here I can rip to DSD 512 (or DSD 1024), most of them cannot be bought in any hi-res format. Previously I never bothered to rip them and play them from the internal drive when streaming them sounds just as good, and even better if Qobuz had remastered it at a high res file. But now the upsampled DSD files of those CD’s sound better than the remastered streamed files. And the upsampled DSD files of the 24/192 files I purchased sound better as well, just not as big of a jump as 16/44.1 to DSD512.
The only downside is buying all the music instead of simply streaming it all via Qobuz or Tidal, and buying several TB’s of storage.
More info is here: PGGB thread
|
Much to soak in. Much to learn. Many paths to musical nirvana. @mgrif104 As with you, I'm sticking with G2 for the moment. It's tried and true and simple.
Because numerous variables are involved with streamers, software, and hardware, I need to take a slow approach to this. You guys have opened my eyes to the various possibilities. Appreciate your time.
Seems like the road to streaming, buying the streamer that is a fit for one's system is important, but to exploit it to max is challenging.
Do I have that right?
|
@mclinnguy
When did you get the DAC 200? I thought you were running a Weiss DAC. Beautiful system, BTW. As you note - the DAC 200 is very good on PCM, and truly exceptional on DSD.
I was thinking about HQ player, as I can use it to convert local files and Qobuz streams. But PGGB might be the more reasonable way for me to feed my T+A DACs. I certainly have the processing power in my M4 Mac mini. What I don’t seem to have is the brain power (or patience?) needed to operate HQ player as desired in 2 locations. If you have thoughts there, please share.
Fortunately, even plain old PCM sounds really good here now with my network improvements.
Best,
|
There are a few guys with T+A reference streaming DAC's here, hopefully they chime in.
Try Roon; free 14 day trial. The user interface is as good as it gets, and Roon radio can discover many new bands/tracks you never knew existed, it is wonderful.
But as Audphile1 and yyz... suggested you need a "core" for Roon- your system is well beyond using a generic computer such as a laptop so don't bother. Some use a Roon nucleus, Sonore's options are well regarded etc. Even better a dedicated server such as Antipodes K41.
I would try other apps personally, can't you simply stream Qobuz or Tidal directly? Or from what I have read another great UI experience similar to Roon is Jplay, your unit has UPnP so that should work.
You have a revealing enough system to be able to easily hear the differences between softwares- try them and see which you prefer.
But, if you really want to hear your unit at its best, feed it DSD files; the higher the better. I am currently upsampling tracks to DSD512 using PGGB and playing those files stored on my internal streamer's SSD into a T+A DAC 200 and it is sublime. Takes a good computer and plenty of storage, and patience, but it is worth it. As you know T+A has 2 separate digital to analog converters inside its units, its PCM converter sounds pretty good, but its 1 bit DSD converter is exceptional.
|
I also have a T+A DAC/streamer and agree the G2 app is limiting and disappointing relative to others I have used.
My personal experience with Roon is a few years old but wasn’t particularly good. I haven’t tried it with my SD 3100 HV units but am disinclined to try again as it quite negatively impacted the sound quality even without using any processing. It’s possible it sounds fine w/ the T+A unit, but I have reason to suspect it wouldn’t be as good as the built in streaming client.
In any case, I personally have decided to live with the G2 application as it’s responsive, stable, and doesn’t require me to install an update every time I turn it on (a particular irritation with Bluesound OS).
There’s another choice which you may want to explore - J Play. I’m considering this as I’m also considering running HQ player to convert to native DSD - a format T+A DACs process particularly well as you likely know. There are some complexities to using J play as you’ll need some additional UPNP software but I understand the interface is quite nice and sound quality is not impaired.
I know a number of T+A users have taken this route and it’s discussed a fair amount over at audiophile style forums. Certainly worth exploring.
Best,
|
Apps could be involved in quality but the most important is to isolate the streamers noise from getting into your DAC. This noise is analog noise not 1 and 0’s that people say is bit perfect and all streamers are the same (not true).
ROON is a great streaming interface and for me sounds great. I use TIDAL and Qobuz via ROON and also have about 400 CD’s burned as FLAC files in my hard drive. I did the FLAC thing about 20 years ago and still listen to my LOCAL streaming music.
The ROON Core is a computer that runs the server software that clients such as a cell phone, iPad, computer, etc... can connect to via a web GUI. You ROON Core must be connected into your home network. You can use Ethernet or better yet Fibre Optical from your network.
If you use fibre in your chain, you can put the fibre just before the DAC and get the benefits of the fibre material, which is glass, and glass cannot carry analog noise. It acts as a moat. In my case, I use a cheap noisy computer to run my ROON Core. This noise is stopped in its’ tracks by the fibre as it approaches my DAC(s).
You can spend a lot of money to buy a completely silent streaming machine (computer) and the effects of fibre are likely not that great.
I use the Sonore OpticalRendu streamer to make the above setup work. I have 3 of these since I had 3 DACs at one time.
systemOptique – Small Green Computer
I have made a few posts on A’gon explaining this in more detail.
|
DSP is what makes the sound quality different.
Some streamers have proprietary processing when you stream using a native app. This processing may be partially bypassed when using Roon or Tidal Connect, Qobuz connect or Mconnect/Mcontrol. In addition, Roon uses its own DSP. I’ve heard differences between Roon and Auralic native, as well as between Roon and Aurender conductor. Roon improved sound quality thru a series of firmware updates in the past year or so and now I’m back to using Roon. To me it sounds great right now.
|
Thanks for the info @audphile1. Appreciate it. Regarding possible quality differences, why would that be? Is not the source coming from internet via modem. Apps are involved in quality?
|
Try Roon. All you need is a computer to install Roon core. UI is the best.
Downside? You have to compare sound quality of roon vs native app. With some streamers there may be differences in sound quality. Try and see.
|
