Jump to content
IGNORED

A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming


Message added by The Computer Audiophile

Important and useful information about this thread

Posting guidelines

History and index of useful posts

Most important: please realize this thread is about bleeding edge experimentation and discovery. No one has The Answer™. If you are not into tweaking, just know that you can have a musically satisfying system without doing any of the nutty things we do here.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Dev said:

Another comparison that is meaningful is Roon/RAAT vs HQP/NAA with the same AL image. I am still on trial on HQP embedded and find HQP/NAA (with Roon as controller) to sound better than Roon/RAAT.

 

This is absolutely the case. Even with all filters and noise shapers turned off, Roon/HQPe/NAA sounds better than Roon/RAAT. I would love a technical explanation as to why.

Link to comment

I've taken a look at trying LMS/squeezelite on the SE under AL Extreme in ramroot mode.

 

It looks messy. Unlike Roon, where data lives cleanly under /var/roon and executables under /opt, LMS files are all over the map: http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/Logitech_Media_Server_file_locations#Ubuntu_.3E12.04

 

Not sure it would be easy to soft link the space consuming chunks to the SSD - otherwise my boot stick will grow in size by upward of 500MB, to close to 4GB. It'd work, just take a looong time to boot.

 

Any other volunteers? 9_9

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

This is absolutely the case. Even with all filters and noise shapers turned off, Roon/HQPe/NAA sounds better than Roon/RAAT. I would love a technical explanation as to why.

 

Good to know that I am not alone. Since the differences are on the same set of h/w, I think it all boils down to the design and implementation of their respective s/w which nobody has a clue.

 

Off late, Roon has been more into fancy features rather than concentrating on sound quality. I hope they realize and changes their strategy soon.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, diecaster said:

It might have something to do with fact that the endpoint in Roon is the renderer while the endpoint running NAA is not. 

 

This is from the Roon CTO in 2015, so replace "remote" with the current terminology "Roon Bridge".

 

"All file decoding occurs on the core. The bits are then transmitted to the remote, either in their original format or processed (if you have volume normalization or crossfade enabled). The remote owns the audio clock and has a fairly large (multi-second) buffer that fully isolates it from timing characteristics of the server. The remote handles all compatibility-oriented conversions itself (e.g. converting to a sample rate compatible with your DAC, converting DSD to PCM for playback on PCM DACs, etc). If your DAC fully supports the source material, then the remote is just a passthrough."

 

So if the DAC supports the source material, then for both Roon and HQP, all decoding and conversions and DSP are done on the server side, not Roon Bridge endpoint and HQP NAA,

 

i.e. both Roon Bridge and NAA are just a passthrough...

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-client-server-best-practice/976/57

 

 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

This is absolutely the case. Even with all filters and noise shapers turned off, Roon/HQPe/NAA sounds better than Roon/RAAT. I would love a technical explanation as to why.

 

I've always found HQP to sound better than Roon but recently that's changed. 

 

I believe believe once you reach a certain level, touching the digital signal as little as possible is better than manipulating it for whatever the reason.

 

Roon/Raat is now exceeding HQP for me.

It's system dependent. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, flkin said:

 

I've always found HQP to sound better than Roon but recently that's changed. 

 

I believe believe once you reach a certain level, touching the digital signal as little as possible is better than manipulating it for whatever the reason.

 

Roon/Raat is now exceeding HQP for me.

It's system dependent. 

 

So how do you reach a certain level and what do you exactly mean by touching the digital signal as little as possible ? We are no talking about up-sampling neither in Roon nor in HQP here.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, austinpop said:

It occurred to me I had not actually A/B tested my SE running AL Extreme headless RoonServer - with and without RAM boot. So that's what I compared. I listened to 3 tracks, but the answer was evident in the first few notes. The RAM booted version sounds better. Much better.  

 

yes, same results for me as well on the NUC. So the effect seems pretty evident irrespective of the h/w.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, austinpop said:

The RAM booted version sounds better. Much better. 

 

 

I previously requested this, but can you describe in which way/s? To your ears of course.

 

Otherwise (and it may just be me) "better" has little meaning for the purposes of discussion. I know this is all subjective anyway but some description of the way/s something sounds better to one's ears/tastes makes for even more interesting reading and discussion.

 

RAM booted sounds smoother, darker? Or more detailed? Soundstage different?

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

I previously requested this, but can you describe in which way/s? To your ears of course.

 

Otherwise (and it may just be me) "better" has little meaning for the purposes of discussion. I know this is all subjective anyway but some description of the way/s something sounds better to one's ears/tastes makes for more interesting reading and discussion?

 

RAM booted sounds smoother? Or more detailed? Soundstage different?

 

Bigger. Less constricted. More dynamic. More detail.

 

See my description of config 7 in this post:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&comment=895805

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

So how do you reach a certain level and what do you exactly mean by touching the digital signal as little as possible ? We are no talking about up-sampling neither in Roon nor in HQP here.

 

We all trying to push our systems higher, everyone have their own way. With my Pink Faun single box with a customised Audiolinux installation and internal clocks, I'm at the stage where my tX-USBultra and clock makes no difference anymore, actually makes the sound worse.

 

I'm finding that Roon with no upsampling now sounds better than HQP both with or without upsampling. And since both sounds different without upsampling, the signal is being processed by HQP in some way. I'm suggesting to handle the signal as little as possible.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, flkin said:

 

We all trying to push our systems higher, everyone have their own way. With my Pink Faun single box with a customised Audiolinux installation and internal clocks, I'm at the stage where my tX-USBultra and clock makes no difference anymore, actually makes the sound worse.

 

I'm finding that Roon with no upsampling now sounds better than HQP both with or without upsampling. And since both sounds different without upsampling, the signal is being processed by HQP in some way. I'm suggesting to handle the signal as little as possible.

 

Ok, I see. I think, however, which sounds better also has to do with the DAC in the system. I have noticed my use case with two DACs and they both sound better with HQP/NAA but the comparison was made before I had the JCAT net card. I will have to repeat the experiment this weekend. I doubt the result will change but who knows :-)

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Bigger. Less constricted. More dynamic. More detail.

 

See my description of config 7 in this post:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&comment=895805

 

Thanks.

 

Rob Watts has  shared a lot on the Head-Fi forum about how increased RF (from the digital source/chain) can cause increased IM distortion in the DAC and can be mistaken for more 'detail', bigger soundstage and more dynamics... 

 

This is not a knock on you at all but IF he is right in this case (we don't know, but he is an expert in this field) I wonder if you are hearing the results of increased RF and simply enjoying this perceived increase in detail for example?

 

From Rob Watts:

"As you know, RF noise creates noise floor modulation, as the intermodulation distortion from random RF noise is a white noise modulated by the wanted signal. This then results in noise floor modulation, and is very very audible. It accounts for the things sounding brighter and less smooth; additionally, when you reduce RF noise, things sound considerably warmer and darker, and one consequence of this is perception of tempo - more midrange gives the impression of a slower tempo, as individual instruments have much more body.

Now if somebody prefers the brighter sound from more noise floor modulation, then fine - that's their taste and preference. But it's not accurate."

 

 

In terms of tweaking with the digital chain, he says that it's technically better to go with a source/chain that results in a smoother, warmer, darker sound...

 

 

We will never know exactly what is happening in each and every one's system obviously. It's all fascinating stuff to me anyway.

 

And we're all clearly enjoying the music, which is the most important thing.

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, flkin said:

And since both sounds different without upsampling, the signal is being processed by HQP in some way.

 

My PS Audio DirectStream DAC has test you can do with a specific test track to see if the track is being sent to the DAC completely unaltered. I turned off all the upsampling, filters, and noise shapers in HQPe and played the test track. The DirectStream reported on its display that the track was "Bit Perfect" which means the track is *NOT* being processed by HQPe in any way.

 

Link to comment

 

14 minutes ago, diecaster said:

 

My PS Audio DirectStream DAC has test you can do with a specific test track to see if the track is being sent to the DAC completely unaltered. I turned off all the upsampling, filters, and noise shapers in HQPe and played the test track. The DirectStream reported on its display that the track was "Bit Perfect" which means the track is *NOT* being processed by HQPe in any way.

 

 

Can you explain how that works? What are you comparing a track played by hqp  to? 

 

Is the same test possible for Roon? 

 

That would be interesting to see what your DAC says

Link to comment

It's a test file that the DirectStream DAC is coded to see and report on the DAC display if it is being seen as bit perfect. Yes, it would work with Roon too and I have tested it in the past. It also reports as bit perfect in Roon if I turn off all DSP functions including volume leveling.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

Ok, I see. I think, however, which sounds better also has to do with the DAC in the system. I have noticed my use case with two DACs and they both sound better with HQP/NAA but the comparison was made before I had the JCAT net card. I will have to repeat the experiment this weekend. I doubt the result will change but who knows ?

 Very true, for sure the DAC matters and the rest of the system too. I've been using HQP on and off for many years. It does solve an irritating bump in sound with Roon when it switches formats from DSD back to redbook.

 

I'm in my off cycle ? and suspect this might last for a while 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, diecaster said:

It's a test file that the DirectStream DAC is coded to see and report on the DAC display if it is being seen as bit perfect. Yes, it would work with Roon too and I have tested it in the past. It also reports as bit perfect in Roon if I turn off all DSP functions including volume leveling.

 

Does that mean that Roon and HQPlayer should sound the same if we keep DSP off?

 

I'm finding it doesn't. I'm going to have to revisit this again or see a shrink ?

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Thanks.

 

Rob Watts has  shared a lot on the Head-Fi forum about how increased RF (from the digital source/chain) can cause increased IM distortion in the DAC and can be mistaken for more 'detail', bigger soundstage and more dynamics... 

 

This is not a knock on you at all but IF he is right in this case (we don't know, but he is an expert in this field) I wonder if you are hearing the results of increased RF and simply enjoying this perceived increase in detail for example?

 

From Rob Watts:

"As you know, RF noise creates noise floor modulation, as the intermodulation distortion from random RF noise is a white noise modulated by the wanted signal. This then results in noise floor modulation, and is very very audible. It accounts for the things sounding brighter and less smooth; additionally, when you reduce RF noise, things sound considerably warmer and darker, and one consequence of this is perception of tempo - more midrange gives the impression of a slower tempo, as individual instruments have much more body.

Now if somebody prefers the brighter sound from more noise floor modulation, then fine - that's their taste and preference. But it's not accurate."

 

 

In terms of tweaking with the digital chain, he says that it's technically better to go with a source/chain that results in a smoother, warmer, darker sound...

 

 

We will never know exactly what is happening in each and every one's system obviously. It's all fascinating stuff to me anyway.

 

And we're all clearly enjoying the music, which is the most important thing.

 

This is one of the reasons why listening tests alone, in much the same way as measurements alone, are not enough to draw reliable conclusions. Unfortunately measurements are often impossible or very expensive to perform. But in the case of sound quality changes that are conjectured to be due to improved latency measures, measurements can be done quite straightforwardly and there is actually no reason not to do them.     

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, flkin said:

 

 

Can you explain how that works? What are you comparing a track played by hqp  to? 

 

Is the same test possible for Roon? 

 

That would be interesting to see what your DAC says

I guess it just makes a midsum check or, even better, a bit-by-bit comparison between the data sent to the DAC and a reference file. It is a trivial test that every DAC that has enough internal memory to store a whole track should implement.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, flkin said:

 

Does that mean that Roon and HQPlayer should sound the same if we keep DSP off?

 

I'm finding it doesn't. I'm going to have to revisit this again or see a shrink ?

 

Well, it means both are sending the same bits when all DSP is turned off. My ultraRendu acting as a Roon endpoint is obviously different than when it is acting an NAA. So, it is not the same.... 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...