16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[R1200CL]

On 7/14/2018 at 10:43 AM, semente said:

but when I think that I'll have to re-tag everything again I change my mind. ?

 

Roon does that without tagging. 

 

Roon can show you your library by format, version, or almost anything you can think about. Use the focus function. 

[semente]

12 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

Roon does that without tagging. 

 

Roon can show you your library by format, version, or almost anything you can think about. Use the focus function. 

 

Thanks for letting me know, but Roon is not for me.

I much prefer iTunes to any other (Mac OS) music browser.

The thing is that I tag all my music manually in a way that I find sensible.

[R1200CL]

On 7/14/2018 at 2:21 PM, numlog said:

Lossless volume control with UDA38Pro DAC

 

If you got the first production batch, it has an hardware error. 

 

Maybe explain your problems ?

 

Have you got the chance to test more expensive DAC’s ?

 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

It's this one: https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/gb/cat/4775911

 

Int. Release 02 Feb. 2006

Ⓟ 1961 Deutsche Grammophon GmbH
© 2006 Deutsche Grammophon GmbH
Recorded at Wembley Town Hall, London, September 1960

Yeah, 1961 pre-dated Dolby A and DBX by almost a decade. But 2006 for the CD release is well into the era where autocorrelation technology can seamlessly remove tape hiss. I wonder why DGG didn't use it?

[diecaster]

Because noise reduction is NOT seamless. I would rather they leave the tape noise....

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

Roon does that without tagging. 

 

Roon can show you your library by format, version, or almost anything you can think about. Use the focus function. 

I'm sure that Roon is everything that it's cracked up to be. But their business model leaves me cold. I do not "subscribe" to software. It's a strategy born of greed as far as I'm concerned. In some cases, it's done to make it possible to develop truly universal software that runs inside of a browser. That's why, I believe, that Adobe went to a web-based pay-as-you-go model. Before, Photoshop, et al, had to be developed for both Mac and Windows and that took a lot effort. Now they develop ONE version of their entire creative suite and people on Windows, Mac, Unix, Linux, Chromebook, and various tablet technologies can all use the software. That's probably good, but I don't like to have to pay annually or monthly for any software. Want to buy it and be done with it. That's why I'm still using Creative suite 6. It's old, but it still works and it does everything I need for it to do and it's MINE!

JRiver's Media Center does much of what Roon does (but I have "test driven" Roon and I know that it is better than Media Center) but it's a lot more fiddly and arcane and has a pretty steep learning curve, but you pays your $50 or so, and it's yours. If you don't want to upgrade to the next version, that's your choice, but if you do, the upgrades are reasonable at about $25-$30. With Roon, IIRC, it's $100 every year or $500 for a lifetime license. I'm sorry, it's just not worth it. It's not THAT much better than JRiver! 

To be honest, iTunes would be good enough for me IF they supported high-resolution formats without the addition of third party software. 

 

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, diecaster said:

Because noise reduction is NOT seamless. I would rather they leave the tape noise....

It is seamless if it's done right. Go listen to any of the RCA "Living Stereo" reissues in SACD. They are as quiet as a church mouse with no artifacts - even on good headphones. And believe me were there any funny business as a by product of the autocorrelation (such as noise modulation, pumping, or other artifacts, I'd hear 'em on headphones even if they were not noticeable on speakers. 

[diecaster]

If you are going to use Roon just like you use iTunes, why would would you buy it??

[gmgraves]

25 minutes ago, diecaster said:

If you are going to use Roon just like you use iTunes, why would would you buy it??

That's just the problem. One doesn't "buy" Roon, one rents it and the rent is high!

 

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

It is seamless if it's done right. Go listen to any of the RCA "Living Stereo" reissues in SACD. They are as quiet as a church mouse with no artifacts - even on good headphones. And believe me were there any funny business as a by product of the autocorrelation (such as noise modulation, pumping, or other artifacts, I'd hear 'em on headphones even if they were not noticeable on speakers. 

 

Where I would worry about noise reduction is that they throw the baby out with the bathwater - noise is reduced, but also low level acoustic, ambience information. I have compilations of old material, where some tracks have had the noise reduced - and the losses of richness, and sense of the event, compared to what exists in the "noisy" ones, are a poor tradeoff.

[Ralf11]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That's just the problem. One doesn't "buy" Roon, one rents it and the rent is high!

 

 

that is what all software co.s want you to do - rent, rent around the clock

[diecaster]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That's just the problem. One doesn't "buy" Roon, one rents it and the rent is high!

 

 

I am not renting.....

[Cary]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I'm sure that Roon is everything that it's cracked up to be. But their business model leaves me cold. I do not "subscribe" to software. It's a strategy born of greed as far as I'm concerned. In some cases, it's done to make it possible to develop truly universal software that runs inside of a browser. That's why, I believe, that Adobe went to a web-based pay-as-you-go model. Before, Photoshop, et al, had to be developed for both Mac and Windows and that took a lot effort. Now they develop ONE version of their entire creative suite and people on Windows, Mac, Unix, Linux, Chromebook, and various tablet technologies can all use the software. That's probably good, but I don't like to have to pay annually or monthly for any software. Want to buy it and be done with it. That's why I'm still using Creative suite 6. It's old, but it still works and it does everything I need for it to do and it's MINE!

JRiver's Media Center does much of what Roon does (but I have "test driven" Roon and I know that it is better than Media Center) but it's a lot more fiddly and arcane and has a pretty steep learning curve, but you pays your $50 or so, and it's yours. If you don't want to upgrade to the next version, that's your choice, but if you do, the upgrades are reasonable at about $25-$30. With Roon, IIRC, it's $100 every year or $500 for a lifetime license. I'm sorry, it's just not worth it. It's not THAT much better than JRiver! 

To be honest, iTunes would be good enough for me IF they supported high-resolution formats without the addition of third party software. 

 

 

I am so glad I am not the only person in the world who looked at roon and the rental cost and said no way.  Call me stupid, call me old fashioned, but I prefer to pay for and outright own my purchases.  Jriver has been great, bought it 5 years ago and have paid $25 to upgrade it to the current version a few times.  

[semente]

5 hours ago, diecaster said:

If you are going to use Roon just like you use iTunes, why would would you buy it??

 

This is why I don't care for Roon, even though I understand its appeal.

I use iTunes just as I would scan through shelves full of CDs that were sorted according to my own logic. Roon is a more interactive but also entertaining experience which in my view deters or distracts from the primary objective which is listening to music. I already have a smartphone for that.

 

And as @gmgraves mentioned it's an expensive piece of software (this of course is relative, it may possibly be a bargain for a few).

[R1200CL]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I do not "subscribe" to software. It's a strategy born of greed as far as I'm concerned.

 

I totally agree. 

 

That’s why I paid the $499.

As I paid for my W10 licenses, that has free upgrades. So far. 

 

Good SW should be paid for, not rented.

Still I rent my music through Tidal, and movie through Netflix, though I’m also paying for renting and developing their SW. 

 

However. Somehow Roon and others need a income in order to develop and and do maintenance. The way Roon solve things with a client server approach is unlike no others. I think it can’t be compared. And in addition you get MQA first unfold. 

 

Roon is now developing a new mobile platform BTW. 

[numlog]

14 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

If you got the first production batch, it has an hardware error. 

 

Maybe explain your problems ?

 

Have you got the chance to test more expensive DAC’s ?

 

it was a recent batch, PCB marked V1.1.

 

This is best and most expensive DAC I've tried.

 

Have you tried this DAC and more expensive DACs?

[R1200CL]

1 hour ago, numlog said:

Have you tried this DAC and more expensive DACs?

 

No, and Yes. I have this one 

http://thetadigital.com/generation_viii_series_3_dac_preamplifier_info.shtml

 

Price in pic below. 

 

 

[R1200CL]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That's just the problem. One doesn't "buy" Roon, one rents it and the rent is high!

 

 

No, wrong. You buy. That’s my understanding of a lifetime subscription.

What is your understanding ? That you rent it for the rest of your life, if so, what’s the difference and how does it matter to you ?

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Where I would worry about noise reduction is that they throw the baby out with the bathwater - noise is reduced, but also low level acoustic, ambience information. I have compilations of old material, where some tracks have had the noise reduced - and the losses of richness, and sense of the event, compared to what exists in the "noisy" ones, are a poor tradeoff.

I agree, but modern, computer controlled autocorrelation algorithms are pretty good at seamlessly being able to remove the hiss without attenuating the highs. I have lots of ADD and AAD some of it 24/96 and all of it has used modern autocorrelation to remove the hiss. And these recordings are old. Many of them were mastered on Scotch 206 and the Ampex equivalent and believe me, the masters are noisy. Yet if you listen to many of these reissues of this material, it's really uncanny how good modern studio techniques can make these 60 year-old, half track (some of them staggered head, half track) 15ips (38 cm/sec) acetate master tapes sound. 

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

I totally agree. 

 

That’s why I paid the $499.

As I paid for my W10 licenses, that has free upgrades. So far. 

 

Good SW should be paid for, not rented.

Still I rent my music through Tidal, and movie through Netflix, though I’m also paying for renting and developing their SW. 

 

However. Somehow Roon and others need a income in order to develop and and do maintenance. The way Roon solve things with a client server approach is unlike no others. I think it can’t be compared. And in addition you get MQA first unfold. 

 

Roon is now developing a new mobile platform BTW. 

I don't think it's worth $500. At least not to me. JRiver, once you learn it is very powerful. It would be nice if they could make it a bit more user friendly. Like I said, I played with a trial version of Roon and I liked it, but I'm retired and while I'm doing fine financially, I can't throw money around willy-nilly like I used to when I was making lots of the green stuff as a Silicon Valley engineer. So to me, $100/year or $500 for a lifetime just strikes me as way too expensive. 

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

No, wrong. You buy. That’s my understanding of a lifetime subscription.

What is your understanding ? That you rent it for the rest of your life, if so, what’s the difference and how does it matter to you ?

My understanding is that you can pay $100/year for an annual subscription or you can pay $500 for a lifetime subscription. Even when I could afford to spend $500 for a lifetime subscription to Roon, I wouldn't have done it, because I think it's too expensive. I also think $100/year is likewise too dear. JRiver costs $50 and it's yours. Upgrade for $25 if you want to when upgrades come out, but you don't have to. I've a friend who is using JRiver Media Center 18 and is perfectly happy with it. I have Media Center 23 and I'm perfectly happy with that. When v.24 came out, I looked at it and decided that I didn't need what 24 brought to the table, and didn't upgrade. My choice. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

No, wrong. You buy. That’s my understanding of a lifetime subscription.

What is your understanding ? That you rent it for the rest of your life, if so, what’s the difference and how does it matter to you ?

The one part that can't be purchased is all the licensed material that makes Roon so compelling. As you know Roon pulls in all kinds of images and metadata. Even if one purchases the lifetime subscription for $500, it doesn't guarantee the app will function as it does now in the future. 

 

Not a big deal for most people, but something to consider. 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

that is what all software co.s want you to do - rent, rent around the clock

Yeah, that seems to be the current "business" model. I can see where the model would be attractive to a lot of companies, especially if one used the software through a web browser. It eliminated the need to have to develop software for multiple platforms; IOW, one size fits all. When I need a flow-charting or block diagraming program I use LucidChart which is a web-based "equivalent" of Microsoft's Visio (but it's not really as good). If MS would port Visio to the Mac, I'd buy it in a trice, but Lucid chart which one rents for $10/mo works fine. What I do, is on the odd occasion that I need it, I go and rent it for a month. Then I cancel and come back when I need it again. I'd rather buy, but I don't use it often enough to justify $10/mo for a running subscription to it. 

[danadam]

38 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

No, wrong. You buy. That’s my understanding of a lifetime subscription.

What is your understanding ? That you rent it for the rest of your life, if so, what’s the difference and how does it matter to you ?

From What happens with the lifetime subscribers if the company folds or is sold?:

Question

Quote

But I’d like to know - from a technical point-of-view - what happens for me as potential lifetime subscriber, when Roon, for whatever reason, ceases to exist? Will I be able to use Roon after the plug is pulled?
Can I carry on using Roon with the state that Roon has then, just without further development?

Answer

Quote

In the unlikely event that we could not maintain those services, we would release one last build that would kill those dependencies, so you could continue to use the application without our infrastructure as a requirement. Obviously the functionality would be reduced, but it would work.

 

So if that didn't change then technically even with lifetime subscription you are still renting. You only have a promise that you will own it if the company goes under.

 

In another words, what's the difference? To me it is: does it work without internet connection or not?

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, Cary said:

 

I am so glad I am not the only person in the world who looked at roon and the rental cost and said no way.  Call me stupid, call me old fashioned, but I prefer to pay for and outright own my purchases.  Jriver has been great, bought it 5 years ago and have paid $25 to upgrade it to the current version a few times.  

 

And if you'd "bought-into" Roon five years ago, you would be (either way: yearly or lifetime) out $500. What has JRiver cost you in that 5 years $100 - $125. And you can stop at your current level and it will continue to work just fine (until your OS developer changes something that breaks the version you happen to have. Then it will cost you $25 to get it working again. Awww!