Roon Vs jriver

[davide256]

 

13 hours ago, barrows said:

Well I do not think there is any such buffer in my set up (DLNA with A+) and never have any network hiccups.  Fixing a network problem this way seems back asswords to me.  Of course I would never use WIFI for music distribution as it results in more errors and re-sends (and resultant drop in SQ), if the network is even capable enough to do WIFI with DSD 256, etc.  This is why we do not offer WIFI at all with Sonore products, we are after the best sound quality and stable performance.

 

Sounds like less intelligent design for dummies to use to me, especially if it makes implementing a good DSD volume control impossible.

With all the nonsensical "features" offered in ROON which no one needs, it is hilarious to hear them suggest that a DSD capable volume control is not something they will not consider.

Guess we are headed in different directions. NOS DAC's and renderers supporting 802.11ac wifi  are where I am headed. I get all I need out of DSD converted to PCM and electronic volume control is hazardous to your equipment's health. I can accept a wireline tethered server but there's no reason to tolerate it for a renderer endpoint

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 hours ago, diecaster said:

 

If you unplug the Ethernet cable from your streamer using DLNA, how long does music play before it stops?

 

Careful. You may start a crazy audiophile trend :~)

[ted_b]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

This is a legitimate feature request, that is all.

Do not underestimate the knowledge and expertise that Jussi has built into HQPlayer.  Its ability to convolve in DSD, for example.  It just might be that Roon does not have the ability to do a volume control in DSD.

[davide256]

2 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Do not underestimate the knowledge and expertise that Jussi has built into HQPlayer.  Its ability to convolve in DSD, for example.  It just might be that Roon does not have the ability to do a volume control in DSD.

Or that its a not a commonly requested feature. Also since Roon integrates with HQPlayer, they may have reason to keep relationships between the two friendly, avoid turf competition.

[One and a half]

45 minutes ago, ted_b said:

Do not underestimate the knowledge and expertise that Jussi has built into HQPlayer.  Its ability to convolve in DSD, for example.  It just might be that Roon does not have the ability to do a volume control in DSD.

Roon can control volume with their DSP, with CPU activity cost and a conversion. DSD to PCM is quite good in Roon, better than I expected.

[ted_b]

1 minute ago, One and a half said:

Roon can control volume with their DSP, with CPU activity cost and a conversion. DSD to PCM is quite good in Roon, better than I expected.

As I said,  Roon may not have the knowledge or tools to do DSD volume without a conversion.  That was my only point.  I'm sure their DSD to PCM, albeit lossy, is good.

[rodrigaj]

On 8/14/2017 at 5:22 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hey Guys - Don't jump all over someone for stating what he believes to be true. It's pretty confrontational to suggest someone is, "getting deeper and deeper into the notion that your knowlege (sic) of JRiver is less than definitive" when we don't totally know what view he is talking about. 

 

How about a little lenience for a fellow hobbyist who is interested in the same stuff we are?

 

A gentle reminder.

[barrows]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

Barrows-

Roon is also about zone playback and simultaneous zone playback. HQP isn't. Different goals. Not in direct response to anything you said, but Roon also does DSP to DSD (including for volume levelling) without converting it to PCM, which is a really cool feature that you don't find too often. 

 

I think Roon understand many users have below optimum network setups. I think their POV on who their customer base is and what is most needed for them is simply very different from what you want to do.

 

At the high end of the audio hobby we all have specific likes and dislikes. I know of all sorts of HW and software I'd never buy b/c it doesn't have a specific attribute or feature I find necessary. Obviously whoever produced it decided that feature wasn't absolutely necessary. Doesn't mean it isn't a very good product, it just means it isn't the perfect match for me. 

 

But I use the HW volume control on my system only, so maybe I shouldn't comment on this one. I hate on screen volume controls. Can never get the precision I like with adjustments. 

My point is, ROON offers volume control for PCM, so clearly they see that there is value in having a volume control, so why not for DSD.  I am sure if they wanted to they could figure a way to work it out.

I agree with you concerning how most on screen VCs are configured, but it does not have to be that way: again, sharp folks like the guys at ROON could implement an onscreen volume control with more precision which is easy to use: all you would have to do is have a tap sensitive control which changed only 0.5 dB at a time via a single tap, with a slider for larger adjustments.

[Abarth]

Volume control can't be done directly on DSD raw data. It has to be converted to PCM first, and then reconverted to DSD. Anyway, no matter how the wordlength in the digital domain is, volume control in software is a lossy thing. At the end your dac, will be feeded with data words that use only the first few bits at lower volumes in PCM. And for DSD in principle it's the same. For serious listening, software volume control is a no no (also if done in a DAC or network player).

[firedog]

22 minutes ago, Abarth said:

Volume control can't be done directly on DSD raw data. It has to be converted to PCM first, and then reconverted to DSD. Anyway, no matter how the wordlength in the digital domain is, volume control in software is a lossy thing. At the end your dac, will be feeded with data words that use only the first few bits at lower volumes in PCM. And for DSD in principle it's the same. For serious listening, software volume control is a no no (also if done in a DAC or network player).

But can't it be done if you convert it to mulitbit DSD (DSD wide)? This wouldn't involve using PCM decimation. To my way of looking at, that's still DSD.

[barrows]

12 minutes ago, Abarth said:

Volume control can't be done directly on DSD raw data. It has to be converted to PCM first, and then reconverted to DSD. Anyway, no matter how the wordlength in the digital domain is, volume control in software is a lossy thing. At the end your dac, will be feeded with data words that use only the first few bits at lower volumes in PCM. And for DSD in principle it's the same. For serious listening, software volume control is a no no (also if done in a DAC or network player).

This is not entirely true, HQPlayer does it, and the ESS chips control DSD volume without conversion to PCM rates, that is the entire point here.  While some of this may be semantics, here is one way: say you have DSD 64 at 2.xxx MHz and one bit, then you modulate to 2.xxx MHz at 64 bits, then you control the volume.  This method is what is called "DSD wide" in the pro world and involves no decimation (no change in sample rate, which would create some artifacts, and is how you control DSD volume without degradation).  As long as your modulators are good, and the processing power is enough, this is a transparent process.

@Miska can explain (or not as he chooses) how HQPlayer does it, but it also does not convert to PCM to control volume.

Digital volume control in software is not lossy, if done right, and at 64 bits you have room for 40 bits (120 dB!) of attenuation with no loss, even at 32 bits there is room for 8 bits of attenuation with no loss of 24 bit files (24 dB) of attenuation.  And the fact is that your system, and mine, only really resolve 16 bits at most in room anyway.

The idea that digital volume control is a problem is a myth that needs to be debunked, analog volume controls are indeed lossy, but digital volume controls are transparent as long as one is not using too much attenuation.

[firedog]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

This is not entirely true, HQPlayer does it, and the ESS chips control DSD volume without conversion to PCM rates, that is the entire point here.  While some of this may be semantics, here is one way: say you have DSD 64 at 2.xxx MHz and one bit, then you modulate to 2.xxx MHz at 64 bits, then you control the volume.  This method is what is called "DSD wide" in the pro world and involves no decimation (no change in sample rate, which would create some artifacts, and is how you control DSD volume without degradation).  As long as your modulators are good, and the processing power is enough, this is a transparent process.

@Miska can explain (or not as he chooses) how HQPlayer does it, but it also does not convert to PCM to control volume.

Digital volume control in software is not lossy, if done right, and at 64 bits you have room for 40 bits (120 dB!) of attenuation with no loss, even at 32 bits there is room for 8 bits of attenuation with no loss of 24 bit files (24 dB) of attenuation.  And the fact is that your system, and mine, only really resolve 16 bits at most in room anyway.

The idea that digital volume control is a problem is a myth that needs to be debunked, analog volume controls are indeed lossy, but digital volume controls are transparent as long as one is not using too much attenuation.

okay, so you indirectly answered my post by confirming VC can be done in DSD wide.

So now the Roon thing is a little less understandable to me, as they do volume levelling and other DSP functions on DSD in just that way - without conversion to PCM. 

[Abarth]

digital volume control in digital domain done right is not lossy. But at the end of the process, you'll have to feed your eg 24 bit DAC. There is no free lunch. digital volume controls are, for my ears, way more intrusive than anything Roon vs JRiver sound differences.

But its me anyway, which doesn't give much on DSD vs good old PCM DCS with classy mastered source material.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Abarth said:

digital volume control in digital domain done right is not lossy. But at the end of the process, you'll have to feed your eg 24 bit DAC. There is no free lunch. digital volume controls are, for my ears, way more intrusive than anything Roon vs JRiver sound differences.

But its me anyway, which doesn't give much on DSD vs good old PCM DCS with classy mastered source material.

Consider that virtually all recordings done in the last 20 years use digital attenuation in the mixing process...  Apparently your ears are broken, or you just believe mythological nonsense enough to be hearing things which are not there.  This is one of those technical subjects which is not debatable, the actual engineering facts do not lie, and there is nothing "magical" going on.  The idea that digital attenuation is a "problem" is a myth, as long as one is not using too much of it.

[Abarth]

Thanks for your kind words. 

1. You don't seem to understand the difference between attenuation in a purely digital domain like mixing and the effects of it at the moment it has to hit a physical DAC with its limited resolution and the aim of reducing the output voltage of it

2. You throwed in a number about the real accuracy of a good DAC, 16 bit. Pretty close you are. It's just that this fact makes the situation worse, as you don't have 24 bits for full volume to start with. Hint, the lower real world resolution compared to the datasheet numbers doesn't stem from not being able to reproduce the upper bits (MSB downwards) correctly

3. Many if not most Real world audio reproduction systems unfortunately do not really have an ideal gain structure. If you do not correct for it with adequate means in the analog domain, full digital output often results in clipping or overdriving, or insane loudness levels. What does a not so technically interested listener do in such cases? He uses sw gain control to reduce even further...

4. You don't have to believe me. But I'm pretty sure Thorsten Loesch,  Mike Moffat, the late Charlie Hansen and perhaps some more equally knowledgeable people would agree with me. Tell them about myths, since I'm out here.

 

And try to conduct arguments in a more civilized manner. It gets you further, in life.

 

[barrows]

 

1.  I understand that there is no difference at all, you are making something up which does not exist.  It does not matter to the 

     DAC what the incoming level is, if it did, then all signals below full scale would have problems.  Unless you are referring to

     the fact that the self noise is not reduced as the volume is lowered; again this is not a real world problem unless one has to

     apply unreasonable levels of attenuation.     

 

2.  Again, it is you who does not understand, you at most 20 bits actual resolution, and volume reduction is reducing the 

     lowest bits which are not information you can hear.  You are not losing actual resolution at all.

 

3.  Agreed, many systems do have gain structure issues: the proper way to handle this to solve it, not by adding additional

     noise and distortion 

     through high levels of analog attenuation.  You seem to believe there are no drawbacks to analog attenuation, this is not 

     the case at all.  Resistors have distortion, which can be measured, and they add thermal noise, the more analog attenuation

     one uses, the more problems you have.  Fix the gain mismatch the correct way, by properly matching your components 

     gain: it is hardly a high end approach to have a massive gain mismatch and then fix it by massive attenuation.

 

4.  I can trot out just as many respectable high end designers who would disagree, and even the late Mr. Hansen, who I was

     lucky to have known, changed his opinion on this making the ESS 9038 chip's digital VC available in the QX-5.

  

       

[Fredc]

i use jriver. Their audio engine digital volume control don't handle dsd either. My dac though is lks mh-da004 which is ess 9038 and has digital vc like the qx-5. Their recommandation is to use it if you dont have or want to bypass your preamp. I guess the quality of analog attenuation depends on quality of preamp?

[markreif]

I tried Roon for two months. As a current user of Logitech's Media Server with two Transporter devices in my system (using excellent mobile apps) I found Roon's Mobile app (Android and Iphone-Ipad) to be quite underwhelming. JRiver -which I've been using for 6 months or so has an app that suffices. It definitely is a better choice than Roon's. Roon's only advantage over JRiver IMHO is is the integration of lyrics. Unfortunately it hasn't been consistent enough so for USB Audio playback I'm going with JRiver. Jriver also has a Theater mode (that Roon can't duplicate) that I find very pleasing on the 24" touch screen that I have in my family room.

[jriver]

22 hours ago, markreif said: Roon's only advantage over JRiver IMHO is is the integration of lyrics. Unfortunately it hasn't been consistent enough so for USB Audio playback I'm going with JRiver. Jriver also has a Theater mode (that Roon can't duplicate) that I find very pleasing on the 24" touch screen that I have in my family room.

The latest version of JRiver supports lyrics:

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=119674.0

 

Thanks for the kind words.

[markreif]

Thanks