Why I think Roon is overpriced even though I've never tried it

[dannyroonlabs]

Surely only software that aims for bit perfect replay can even begin to attempt to offer that? I can't see how software that relies instead on extensive DSP can be said to offer replay which is intrinsically as "pure and unmodified" as it can be; more like that extensive manipulation of the signal, like a sophisticated version of the tone controls of old, results in something that provides a simulation of the analogue original that is deemed accurate according to the perception of the listener?

 

 

So, while this is case usually, try, let me give you a counter example:

 

Let's say you have an audio renderer device you've bought, and inside there is a DAC chip. Some DAC chips take N bit PCM input and output analog. Some DAC chips take 1 bit DSD input and output analog. What you'll see is that a lot of actual DAC chips out there support the DSD model better, mostly because it's much cheaper to make a 1 bit wide DAC chip than it is to make a much wider (32bits) chip. So how do you play PCM content on those DSD DAC chips? Well, the renderer has other stuff in it to convert the PCM to DSD before feeding the data to the DAC chip. Yes, many of your beloved devices actually do this.

 

In the case of HQPlayer, they feel that they can do a better job of that conversion of PCM->DSD than some hidden thing in a box. They also let you tweak it. Yes, it takes a lot of power to do so, but the reality is that their conversion is way better than a lot of stuff out there that's "hidden" away in the boxes.

 

So, if you look at the full chain in these hardware cases where the actual DAC chip is 1bit, it looks the same: PCM->DSD->DAC->analog -- the question is who is doing what and at what stage. That's one of the keys of why HQPlayer sounds so great -- it's bypassing the machinery in the box and giving you something much better... assuming your end to end chain is "compatible".

 

However, if something in the PCM phase tweaks the audio, then you are putting crap into the DSD conversion process. Roon tries hard to not only avoid that, but to tell you when it is happening (signal path). Then, how that bit perfect stream is rendered, is irrelevant to Roon.

 

People who compare HQPlayer SQ to Roon's SQ are clearly missing the purpose and techniques of both pieces of software. It's kinda like saying your car is better than your turbo charger.

[semente]

thanks...

 

as simple as it may be to run 2 players, i don't know why, i just don't want to have to do that. I don't even like creating playlists. I like to just browse my windows folder structure, click a track and it begin playing from there until i simply click a different track. I don't want to have to add tracks to a playlist. Miska said he will make that an option in the next release. Shuffle by genre would also be nice.

I don't shuffle or use playlists, but generally listen to whole albums instead.

 

Sometimes I just browse with an OS window and then drag and drop into HQPlayer.

 

You can customise hqplayer's window size and position the playback command strip vertically.

 

Doesn't beat flipping CD cases, though.

 

R

[Jud]

I wasn't. I was referring to the OP's tirade. If Danny is interested in hearing my critiques of the software I'll PM him.

 

Just trying to keep Danny humble.

[beerandmusic]

Surely only software that aims for bit perfect replay can even begin to attempt to offer that? I can't see how software that relies instead on extensive DSP can be said to offer replay which is intrinsically as "pure and unmodified" as it can be; more like that extensive manipulation of the signal, like a sophisticated version of the tone controls of old, results in something that provides a simulation of the analogue original that is deemed accurate according to the perception of the listener?

 

I am not an audio engineer, and i am sure there are many here that can say more accurately, but in what i would consider logical thinking, no matter whether you are talking pcm or dsd, some algorithm (rather software or firmware) is used to reproduce the original analog signal...no method is "truly" accurate, but only an estimation...i don't think either method could claim which is "more accurate"....although one ultimately will sound more natural, more spacious, more sound stage to sound more live....what is done in the algorithms to do the estimations is where the true magic is...and to me, regardless of what people suggest is beyond hearing or not, "my logic" tells me the higher the sampling rate, the more accurate provided the same algorithms are applied...jmo and i may be so wrong (grin). Also i have read and understand though that the higher the rate, the more design work to eliminate noise, which also plays into the equation. But i don't think one can say more DSP = less accurate...just the contrary...it is more which is the better algorithms and filters and whatever other junk they do to it to make it a more accurate reproduction.

[dannyroonlabs]

Just trying to keep Danny humble.

 

 

Roon delivers bitperfect untweaked audio, because I want the options of opinionated audio conversion/rendering to be a user choice. In the case of UI, I have very strong opinions, and Roon is the manifestation of those opinions.

 

If you disagree with me on the two areas where I have a lot of opinions (UI/UX and networking), then you will find me not holding back any punches. The use of the word "terrible" is something I will stick to, as I truly do believe that the experiences of navigating spreadsheets in music software is terrible. I also find it lazy that in 2 decades, the world has so few solutions that have moved past the archaic models that were first implemented in the mid 1990s.

[whoozwah]

Just trying to keep Danny humble.

 

Hey man, it's all good.

[dannyroonlabs]

If Danny is interested in hearing my critiques of the software I'll PM him.

 

I am interested in your critiques, but you shouldn't do it in a PM. You should do it in public on our community site, so others can see too.

[Melvin]

I don't shuffle or use playlists, but generally listen to whole albums instead.

 

Sometimes I just browse with an OS window and then drag and drop into HQPlayer.

 

You can customise hqplayer's window size and position the playback command strip vertically.

 

Doesn't beat flipping CD cases, though.

 

R

 

Drag and drop is how I use HQPlayer also. My library of uncompressed FLAC files are located on an external drive and are organized very simply (i.e. Genre, Artist, Album). Very un-Roon like, I know.

 

@beerandmusic, why do you care about Roon if this is pretty much how you want to play music?

[BobSherman]

The point was that the majority of the professionals realize DSD is the superior format for SQ...nothing here worth debating....i simply agree to disagree if you see it any other way.

Really lol I do not think so.

[Jud]

Surely only software that aims for bit perfect replay can even begin to attempt to offer that? I can't see how software that relies instead on extensive DSP can be said to offer replay which is intrinsically as "pure and unmodified" as it can be; more like that extensive manipulation of the signal, like a sophisticated version of the tone controls of old, results in something that provides a reconstruction of the analogue original that is deemed acceptably accurate according to the individual perception and tastes of the listener?

 

Further to what Danny wrote:

 

(1) Bit perfect is mostly a myth. It is one small step in a multi-step process, and it is mostly a test of minimal competence in an audiophile software player.

 

It's extremely likely that every file you play has had at least one lossy, i.e., non bit perfect, conversion (from a sigma-delta modulated DSD-like format to PCM) done to it by the time you get it, and perhaps multiple lossy conversions (from the PCM rate used in the studio equipment, which might be 24/96, to Redbook, for example). Then let's say you have minimally competent player software that won't do any conversions you don't tell it to, and this feeds a bit perfect copy of your lossily converted file to the DAC. Once in the DAC (other than a handful of true NOS DACs), it undergoes more lossy conversions - up to 3 PCM sample rate conversions (for Redbook it's 3) and a format conversion to a DSD-like sigma-delta modulated format, before final conversion to analog.

 

That's about 6 lossy conversions, including 2 format conversions between PCM and sigma-delta modulated format (which can be 1-bit or multibit). Just how significant to the sound do you think that single bit perfect step is in the context of all these lossy conversions?

 

(2) There is DSP and there is DSP. (Informative, eh? )

 

(a) Some DSP is intended to change the signal. This can be in service of attaining a particular type of sound (phase or reverb effects to artificially create a sense of spaciousness), or in service of greater overall accuracy (room equalization software in order to counter room interactions that create inaccuracies, i.e., sounds not on the recording).

 

(b) Some DSP is intended to obtain the greatest degree of accuracy possible with the digital signal, i.e., a signal at the output of the DAC most closely resembling the analog product at the studio (or possibly better, where studio digital conversion equipment adds distortions, which it can and does do). Since the 1s and 0s of the digital signal aren't music, and must necessarily undergo conversions to make them music, it is the job of this signal processing to do these conversions as well as possible. So the conversions are done with algorithms that impart as little of the distortions that these conversions are subject to (generally speaking, aliasing, ringing, dispersion [a phase and timing related defect]), as possible. Summing up, conversions are an absolute necessity to get music from a digital signal, and the DSP done by this software aims to do these conversions while adding the absolute minimum of distortion to the analog result.

 

Therefore: A digital signal is never "pure and unmodified" in the sense of being bit perfect through the entire chain. It has to undergo conversions to get to you in file rather than analog format, more conversions to change it from that file to music, and still more conversions to avoid nasty sounding distortions in the final analog product. (This is why your DAC or software running on a computer resamples and filters the signal, to avoid harmonic and intermodulation distortion at relatively high levels that would inevitably occur if Redbook were converted directly to analog.) Maintenance of a pristine original signal is an analog mindset that does not apply in the same way in the digital world. The idea that *does* carry over from analog to digital is avoidance of distortion, and it's that you want to be looking at rather than the idea of "bit perfect."

[Jud]

Roon delivers bitperfect untweaked audio, because I want the options of opinionated audio conversion/rendering to be a user choice. In the case of UI, I have very strong opinions, and Roon is the manifestation of those opinions.

 

If you disagree with me on the two areas where I have a lot of opinions (UI/UX and networking), then you will find me not holding back any punches. The use of the word "terrible" is something I will stick to, as I truly do believe that the experiences of navigating spreadsheets in music software is terrible. I also find it lazy that in 2 decades, the world has so few solutions that have moved past the archaic models that were first implemented in the mid 1990s.

 

I feel Roon does a laudable thing and does it well. With regard to "lazy," I think of something a friend said when I semi-apologetically told him my current house was built as the typical two-story Colonial, "five, four, and a door." He responded, "There's a reason some styles are classics."

 

I'm very accustomed to scanning through alphabetized lists, so that style works for me. Other styles might also, of course, including possibly Roon's or some variant thereof.

[beerandmusic]

Drag and drop is how I use HQPlayer also. My library of uncompressed FLAC files are located on an external drive and are organized very simply (i.e. Genre, Artist, Album). Very un-Roon like, I know.

 

@beerandmusic, why do you care about Roon if this is pretty much how you want to play music?

 

good question...i didn't realize until just now they didn't have that basic capability....i made a bigger fool of myself than i realized, about complaining about the price when it won't even do what i would want it to (grin)...i wish chris killed this thread long ago, and i don't know why i keep revisiting it....lol...but there has been a lot of information i have garnered as to what others are doing...so all is not lost.

[BobSherman]

Your logic is beyond anything I have experience with. I've never said anything you suggest and don't know how you draw your conclusions.

 

I'll say this: there's no such thing as a superior format. And, you've named 1 out of 5 professionals.

 

I think I'm done with this specific discussion.

Chris,

 

I think this is what he was referring to. His one professional.

 

[beerandmusic]

no, one of Roon's core motivations is to take files out of the experience.

 

one might think it may make sense to offer both options to attract a wider market...it also would make it easier for people to transition if they wanted the "tree-less" method.

[dannyroonlabs]

With regard to "lazy," I think of something a friend said when I semi-apologetically told him my current house was built as the typical two-story Colonial, "five, four, and a door." He responded, "There's a reason some styles are classics."

 

Yes, and I'd say the same of architecture if all that existed were the classics!

[4est]

Sheesh, why not use HQPlayer then? Drag/drop or set HQP as the default player for that file type? Easy-peasy!

^^^ just out of curiosity, if a user has their music organized in folders the way they like it, is that an option, e.g. can you just play by windows tree folder? I like to browse my own tree structure and play from there.

 

Also please expand on your DSP in the works? Is your engineer as good as Miska where he will get there at least eventually? And if not, why not try to work a licensing deal with Miska (either a flat amount or let him take a royalty with everyone that is willing to pay $50 more his DSP feature. I know you support it, but i know a lot of people would prefer to have the SQ without having to run 2 players....I hear the argument that it may be better performance to run in 2 different boxes, but i think more people would prefer it be able to in one player....again, just throwing things out there.

 

I would be more likely to pay $550 with Miskas DSP than $350 without it.

[dannyroonlabs]

Further to what Danny wrote:

 

(1) Bit perfect is mostly a myth. It is one small step in a multi-step process, and it is mostly a test of minimal competence in an audiophile software player.

 

[ good stuff taken out ]

 

(2) There is DSP and there is DSP. (Informative, eh? )

 

[ good stuff taken out ]

 

 

This post is pure gold.. It's so hard to explain this stuff, and you really did nail it. I hope a lot of people try to understand this. This DSD vs PCM discussion would be mostly moot if people understood this. It's all about context.

 

Calling bit-perfect a myth however is generalizing a bit too much. It's just that it's not doing any manipulation in a segment of the end-to-end chain.

[YashN]

I think I'm done with this specific discussion.

 

Don't feed the troll. Nothing good will ever come out of it.

[mansr]

(1) Bit perfect is mostly a myth. It is one small step in a multi-step process, and it is mostly a test of minimal competence in an audiophile software player.

 

A bit-perfect path from the application to the DAC is a necessity. If the OS starts meddling with the audio stream (resampling, mixing), you've already lost.

 

Within the application, the ability to simply pass audio data unchanged from file to DAC is highly desirable if not a strict necessity. It provides a reference point with which to compare other settings and applications. Since it's trivial to implement, I personally wouldn't put much faith in application unable to provide it.

[dannyroonlabs]

A bit-perfect path from the application to the DAC is a necessity. If the OS starts meddling with the audio stream (resampling, mixing), you've already lost.

 

Within the application, the ability to simply pass audio data unchanged from file to DAC is highly desirable if not a strict necessity. It provides a reference point with which to compare other settings and applications. Since it's trivial to implement, I personally wouldn't put much faith in application unable to provide it.

 

This is assuming you trust the DAC to do the best thing. The HQPlayer enthusiasts say it can do a better job than your DAC, and end up giving your DAC a stream that requires less massaging into analog.

[mansr]

This is assuming you trust the DAC to do the best thing. The HQPlayer enthusiasts say it can do a better job than your DAC, and end up giving your DAC a stream that requires less massaging into analog.

I'm not denying that at all. What I'm saying is that a competent application should be able to defeat any OS meddling and provide, as an option, a direct path from file to DAC. If it can't do that, it is at best hard to evaluate, at worst slave to whatever mangling the OS does.

[Miska]

Within the application, the ability to simply pass audio data unchanged from file to DAC is highly desirable if not a strict necessity. It provides a reference point with which to compare other settings and applications. Since it's trivial to implement, I personally wouldn't put much faith in application unable to provide it.

 

HQPlayer can of course play both PCM and DSD bit-perfect. And among many other ways I've verified it also when testing MQA content so the MQA decoding lights up on the Meridian DAC which wouldn't work if the stream wouldn't be bit-perfect.

 

Of course pretty much the entire player would be wasted that way, but it is possible nonetheless.

 

DSD is bit-perfect by default since the "Direct SDM" setting is enabled by default. On purpose, to deliver the "Direct" part of the DSD premise.

 

With some DACs, like DSC1, it may be less desirable, as bit-perfect PCM inputs produce no sound because the output is muted.

 

 

 

To me, more interesting question is which DACs are bit-perfect from input to the actual analog conversion stage.

[Jud]

To me, more interesting question is which DACs are bit-perfect from input to the actual analog conversion stage.

 

So they don't mess with the input provided by your software, for example?

[Jud]

I'm not denying that at all. What I'm saying is that a competent application should be able to defeat any OS meddling and provide, as an option, a direct path from file to DAC. If it can't do that, it is at best hard to evaluate, at worst slave to whatever mangling the OS does.

 

Which is what I meant when I said the ability to provide a bit perfect signal is a test of minimal competence in the development of an audiophile player.

[Paul R]

I'm not denying that at all. What I'm saying is that a competent application should be able to defeat any OS meddling and provide, as an option, a direct path from file to DAC. If it can't do that, it is at best hard to evaluate, at worst slave to whatever mangling the OS does.

 

(amusement) Not properly using the OS is an application fault. The OS hardly "meddles" with applications, unless they are doing something that will crash the entire machines. At which time, a proper OS will take steps to stop the poorly written application from doing harm.