firedog

Roon doesn't alter your Metadata. It has it's own database that it uses. However, in Roon Settings you can tell it to prioritize your Metadata. That said, it has some quirks, mostly with box sets. You will probably have to make some manual changes to get Roon to display exactly as you like. Roon works a little differently than what you are used to. It has some very powerful sorting tools so you can see the results you want. You just have to try it and get used to it You may find it to your liking.

https://www.lowbeats.de/test-roon-nucleus-one-preiswerter-komplett-musicserver/ Google Translate is your friend

Didn't find it painful. But it was only okay. Not as compelling as some previous stuff.

Yes. In my first system when I was 17, I started with headphones and no speakers, as I couldn't afford decent ones together with the amp and turntable. I then got one speaker and listened in mono, headphones for stereo. I bought the second speaker after a few months to complete the system. I got the most audiophile gear I could afford at the time. Then multiple upgrades over the years. Money wasn't what kept me from being an audiophile. I know lots of young people - kids of friends. None see the need to spend serious amounts of money on sound equipment. Some of them appreciate my system, but they listen over headphones and BT speakers. It's more lifestyle and convenience for them. They don't like music less than me, they just don't "sit and listen" in front of a system. Spending big bucks on listening equipment isn't an idea they subscribe to. BTW, almost none of their parents still have/use a good system, even if they once had one. They've also gone for convenience space saving, etc. The system sits idle - if it is still there. Many aren't even willing to pay $10 a month for streaming. They think free Spotify and YT are good enough. Why pay for music if it's free? Very few listen in anything other than mp3. A few of the youngsters have invested in good headphones. Possibly in 15-20 years if they are settled and with a bigger living space, they will buy components - probably as part of a movie-TV playback system.

Didn't know this one, great album. Thanks.

I've found that most CDs that won't rip only need a simple cleaning: A little distilled water on the disk, microfiber cloth (like for cleaning glasses) and wipe out perpendicularly from the center till dry. 95% of my problem CD's ripped after this. Sometimes 2 cleanings were needed. Of course if there are deep scratches it won't work.

If this is the Beethoven series referred to above, it was recorded between 2005-2007. Can it have been recorded in DXD? I don't think there were DXD recordings then.

Yep, with active speakers, plus sub, and RPi you can have a complete pretty much full range system for about $1000. Same with DAC, pre, amp and conventional speakers. Especially with some of the integrated products around today. This isn't junk, but very good sounding. No, not like a five figure(s) system, but really good. Streaming? It has it's downsides, but having access at the click of a mouse to almost any music I can think of? And in good quality? I couldn't even have imagined such a thing for the first 50 or so years I was alive, and I had already owned several good systems by that point.

Interesting. Big fan of both. I haven't been a huge fan of Todd's previous covers. They never seemed to add that much or give a new perspective on the originals. Well done, but nothing more. Hoping this will be better. The Title track sounds pretty good in that link.

"But to suggest that Bob Stuart’s diligent efforts to assure that his invention is heard and understood represent some sort of hucksterism is simply bizarre." No, it's simply backed up by the facts. Bob Stuart had a lot of respect as an engineer. The MQA hucksterism and the intentionally misleading statements marketing it went quite a ways towards besmirching his reputation. What's bizarre is the continuing refusal of so many in "the industry" to acknowledge that.

Sorry to say, this post reveals that you haven't learned much over the years and continue to misunderstand and misconstrue the argument: The post in question was taken down because it was ridiculous and I'm sure Chris received objections (I know he did). Again, it's the minority of the reactions here, and not very significant. Certainly not representative, as you try to imply. SQ was never taken off the table. But it was widely acknowledged here and other places that SQ was subjective, and not really a useful subject for debate. What was said was that many didn't hear the supposedly obvious SQ improvements brought about by MQA. Mostly what was objected to were falsehoods used to back up subjective claims of universally superior SQ. And that happened frequently. In fact, it was the basis for many MQA claims of sonic superiority. Fremer was attacked not for what he liked, but b/c he wrote that review of an MQA recording and clearly had less than zero understanding of how the technology worked. He used his misunderstandings to back up his claims of superior SQ. He then doubled down on his ignorance in the comments section, where his misunderstandings were pointed out to him and it was suggested he understand the tech before posting false statements about it in his reviews. He absolutely refused to deal with the basic facts when made aware of them. THAT calls into question his "ethical core" and IS a moral failing. Totally unprofessional. So it wasn't "just his opinion about sound" that was criticized. Finally: No. It's a bellweather. Especially since your publication and Stereophile continued to double down on the support for MQA and promote it after the legitimate criticism was revealed. And repeatedly, for years. The "greatest scientific revolution since Copernicus" claim (my paraphrase) was never revoked. Nor were the factually false claims of MQA written about or acknowledged (and especially not in special "from the editor" columns) in the same manner in which MQA was promoted. TAS may have some good subjective reviews, but the MQA episode revealed how it really operates. It thus calls into question the reliability and honesty of the subjective reviews themselves.

I'm totally of that age, have a turntable and an LP collection. I NEVER (and I mean never) play them, and don't miss it.

I've written before about an audio ecosystem that includes many constituencies - manufacturers, hobbyists, journalists, recording professionals, musicians, and others. We all should be watching out for each other's interests. That's what will keep this thing going. Agree. But some leaders in the ecosystem said we should accept MQA even if it wasn't good for the consumer, because it was good "for the industry" JA2 wrote an editorial where he basically said just that. That's not watching out for each other's interests - that's abandoning the interests of consumers, musicians, and others - Those that aren't engaging in corporate profit making thru music. That's one of the things that most upset me about the whole MQA episode. It was basically "the industry" trying to force a format on the consumer that didn't bring any real benefit, yet added costs and complexity.

Well, I can think of a few writers -and one in particular - who seemed to make a point of writing about MQA files in EVERY review, without exception.

Uh, spinning discs are digital and also anonymous. You don't need vinyl for anonymity.