Article: Roon Vs. JRiver | Clash of the Titans

[Kal Rubinson]

Thanks for your efforts and for the clear descriptions and caveats.  It is an impressive and useful report.  Since there are utilities which will monitor and report CPU load and other hardware functions, it would have been nice to see some of those numbers used to compare the two programs.

 

I also note that the analysis does not mention DSD, format conversions, upsampling/downsampling, DSP or multichannel.  

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

Thanks for your thoughts, Kal - I really appreciate any and all input from you!  As you can see, this ended up being a lengthy piece.  So I tried to focus content more toward entry level users, both current and potential............................................  So I and I alone decided to limit the scope to what you see, knowing that (at most) it'd provide about 80% of what 80% of readers might want.  I may have been wrong, but I tried to think it out clearly and make an intelligent decision.

I think that is a reasonable choice and you did a great job.

3 hours ago, bluesman said:

For the same reason, I also kept the evals to basics: bit perfect, no DSP, no sampling morphs etc. ...............And I don't have the knowledge or hardware to do multichannel well. 

Yes and I was pointing it out in the hope that it might prod you or someone else to consider going in this direction.  My experience suggests that these more stressful tasks might reveal some significant differences.

[Kal Rubinson]

39 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I'm game!  I'm working on some new ideas for Chris, and you've tweaked my list.  Best of all, I can now tell my wife in all honesty that we have to get at least one new DAC and another pair of good speakers 😁

You probably need a 6-8 channel DAC and 3 more speakers and a sub if you choose to go down the rabbit hole.

[Kal Rubinson]

24 minutes ago, unfrostedpoptart said:

Nice article for what it covers but missing a huge topic:  multi-channel audio.  I use JRMC for this and have tons of 5.1 FLACs from ripped DVD-Audio and Blu-ray Audio discs, plus DSFs from ripped SACDs and some SACD ISOs.

Yes, as noted above.

24 minutes ago, unfrostedpoptart said:

 

Does Roon even handle this?  Can it remix on the fly for endpoints with a different number of channels than the source file?

Yes it can but the demands it makes on the hardware are different from that of JRiver.

[Kal Rubinson]

23 minutes ago, cookiemarenco said:

What's happening is sudden stopping, stuttering and crashing that is intermittent.  When creating these files, there is no problem.  Playback from consumer system like Roon, Audirvana has provided challenges for our customers (mostly using Macintosh) that prompted us to begin testing.  We use PC and found challenges that varied with Roon and JRiver playing DSD256 files.

What I have found is that this is very highly dependent on the hardware as well as the software.  One can monitor the CPU load as well as the performance of other operations (e.g., disc performance, network load, etc.) and see how such high data rates (DSD256 + multichannel) and the particular playback software (e.g., ROON vs. JRiver) affect them.   

1.  Most dedicated player/server boxes have no more CPU capability than the absolute minimum needed to achieve 2-channel playback in the formats advertised for support.  In other words, going from stereo to mch or adding EQ/resampling can lead to interruptions in playback.  

2.  Different music software/firmware packages themselves can impose different loads on the hardware.  This should be obvious since these packages vary widely in how much else they are doing at the same as they are playing music.

3.  File size, per se, should not make a difference unless the player attempts to buffer entire tracks/albums in memory and simply does not have enough.

4.  Smooth uninterrupted playback of multichannel, DSD256 recordings streaming over a LAN with optional DSP, format conversion and up/down resampling is possible................................just not with every off-the-shelf box.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, michael123 said:

Lacking support of plugins, most notably lacking VST support and Dirac

Roon has said that plug-ins are not on their to-do list and will not be but they have other stuff up their sleeves.

 

1 hour ago, michael123 said:

I tried to adopt Roon few times, but it is not so stable. That friend of mine also has Roon re-scanning the library, disconnecting errors are common

I try to adopt Roon continually but I find it hard to adapt to their lack of directory-based access, horizontal scrolling and their continually-improving but still frustrating management of classical repertoire.

 

1 hour ago, michael123 said:

What I don't like is JRiver approach to customer service, lack of public roadmap and general attitude (especially of their founder) to customers.

As a grumpy old fart myself, I can deal with the attitude.

[Kal Rubinson]

32 minutes ago, McKenna said:

As a long-time user of JRiver, there are some missing and misleading information in your comparison.

JRiver's licensing is actually a yearly subscription disguised as a perpetual license. You have to re-pay $50 at the end of every year to get the next year's release. 2019 was JRiver 25, 2020 is JRiver 26's year. So, say, if you purchased it at $70 last September and you if you wanted to update it to v26 this January, you had to pay another $50(discounted price).

This is misleading. 

First, you do not have "to re-pay $50 at the end of every year to get the next year's release."  You never have to buy a new version license ever again.  The only reason to do so is to get updates and possible enhancements.  If it is working well, stick with what you have. 

Second, all the prices you quote do not represent real prices since, if you purchased a previous version, you can buy, if you choose to, a new version license at a steep discount.  Overall, I have never paid any amounts as great as those you quote.

32 minutes ago, McKenna said:

Their "documents" mentioned in this article comprises of Wiki pages which are not updated for almost a decade now and they do not match the last 5-6 versions. Their only so-called support is their forum with many problems go unanswered.

The Wiki is outdated but I have usually found that problems posted to the support forum are answered, albeit often with some attitude.

32 minutes ago, McKenna said:

It has amazing functions for network (if you can tame your antivirus software) but do mind that you have to jump hoops to set it up to be able to be even playing a single audio file in the way that hundreds of other players do readily.

 Hmmm. I never noticed any particular difficulties with antivirus software (I do exclude JRiver from it) nor with getting it up and running.  Roon is, admittedly, less hand's-on but also more difficult to adjust, customize and correct, although this opinion is from someone with years of JRMC experience prior to using Roon.

32 minutes ago, McKenna said:

I do not recommend it to anyone looking for a simple player and a capable library management software.

I do not recommend it for anyone looking for a simple player, either.  I do recommend it to anyone looking for a serious player with capable library management software.

[Kal Rubinson]

13 hours ago, openmindaudio said:

I've collected about 300 high-res digital files, and JRMC is the best way by far to play them through my set-up,

I agree that JRMC is the best way to play HiRez MCH files.

 

13 hours ago, openmindaudio said:

Apart from that, the Roon wins hands down for user experience.

Here, I cannot agree but that's a personal decision.  I find it hard to find what I want from my own library with Roon because of search limitations and I find it frustrating to edit metadata with Roon.  Yes, my collection is mostly Classical and, when Roon gets the metadata right, it is a delight.  Too often, the recognition process is faulty and the parcellation and identification of works/tracks is corrupt.  Fixing it is daunting.