Roon SQ vs DLNA

This is a really interesting thread.  I’ve taken the first step into streaming with the Mac ‘n Dac-V1 system in the office.  Now I’m looking at serious streaming in the living room system and am quite taken by the Roon approach.  

Then BAM! Metadata is great but at the apparent cost in terms of sound quality.

I’m honestly struggling a bit with deciding on the right system architecture: NAS + posh Naim streamer versus Melco + DAVE versus NAS + NUC i7 as Roon CORE + UltraRendu (with LPS) as endpoint + posh Dac, versus Melco + Linn KDS. 

As I don’t want to waste a dealer’s time by requesting demos of all 4 architectures, I’m left wondering how best to proceed...

best regards from a slightly perplexed FT

T38.45 posted:

I will try to test a different endpoint as soon as wife accepts it ;-))

You can slot in a Raspberry Pi for 35 pounds just to make a test. It will not sound as good as the microRendu but at least it will tell you whether it could be worth trying a different endpoint. Perhaps your problem is not the endpoint ...

I try to borrow another endpoint (Auralic) or wait for Naim to come up with roon support and maybe sell my DAC if price is ok. The pi sounds valid but I have no clue and time to setup that thing I‘m afraid.

@FT: choices:-) but I think that most member here will buy a Naim streamer with roon or wait for Linn to follow. If you don’t like roon, you can still uses dlna for controlling...again, choices :-)

Foot tapper posted:

This is a really interesting thread.  I’ve taken the first step into streaming with the Mac ‘n Dac-V1 system in the office.  Now I’m looking at serious streaming in the living room system and am quite taken by the Roon approach.  

Then BAM! Metadata is great but at the apparent cost in terms of sound quality.

I’m honestly struggling a bit with deciding on the right system architecture: NAS + posh Naim streamer versus Melco + DAVE versus NAS + NUC i7 as Roon CORE + UltraRendu (with LPS) as endpoint + posh Dac, versus Melco + Linn KDS. 

As I don’t want to waste a dealer’s time by requesting demos of all 4 architectures, I’m left wondering how best to proceed...

best regards from a slightly perplexed FT

The 4 architectures offer partly quite different functionalities and entail aspects (control, system intergation) that need to be considered carefully. The DAC (or renderer+DAC, see below) is obviously the most important component, perhaps you could start from there and then proceed backwards? It might also pay off wating a little bit until it becomes clear where Naim is heading to with their classical range. Oversimplifying a little bit, there are basically three options: A) server+renderer and DAC in two boxes, B) server and renderer+DAC in two boxes and C) server, renderer and DAC in three boxes. I prefer A) and C) to B) for flexibility. I understand that taking the DAC out of the renderer (CD player, in those days) was also the original idea behind the Naim DAC, before they started supporting mainly B) type solutions. 

T38.45 posted:

I try to borrow another endpoint (Auralic) or wait for Naim to come up with roon support and maybe sell my DAC if price is ok. The pi sounds valid but I have no clue and time to setup that thing I‘m afraid.

I understand that RoPieee is a turnkey Roon bridge. Just insert the card into the RPi and go, as with the microRendu. I haven't tried it myself, though.

Ok, so would I go back to dlna/upnp again? No, simply not! Roon may not be the best in terms of SQ but it is a fantastic piece of SW! It is so good that I will accept a slightly drop in SQ...if that statement may help ????

nbpf posted:

The 4 architectures offer partly quite different functionalities and entail aspects (control, system intergation) that need to be considered carefully. The DAC (or renderer+DAC, see below) is obviously the most important component, perhaps you could start from there and then proceed backwards? It might also pay off wating a little bit until it becomes clear where Naim is heading to with their classical range. Oversimplifying a little bit, there are basically three options: A) server+renderer and DAC in two boxes, B) server and renderer+DAC in two boxes and C) server, renderer and DAC in three boxes. I prefer A) and C) to B) for flexibility. I understand that taking the DAC out of the renderer (CD player, in those days) was also the original idea behind the Naim DAC, before they started supporting mainly B) type solutions. 

There are of course the additional, rarer, conjunctions, such as D) the preamp+DAC  (e.g using a DAC with volume control and output stage designed to be able to feed a power amp direct, such as Dave, but with only digital inputs), and E) renderer+DAC+preamp (e.g. NAC 272, including analog inputs and digital input bupypassing the renderer so functioning as D, and with Naim preamp character). 

And another one of significance,, combining store+renderer (eg Core,and varios non-Naim solutions) With the distinct benefit of avoidance of streaming locally stored music across a network, which seems often to be the cause of grief.

nbpf posted:

The 4 architectures offer partly quite different functionalities and entail aspects (control, system intergation) that need to be considered carefully. The DAC (or renderer+DAC, see below) is obviously the most important component, perhaps you could start from there and then proceed backwards? It might also pay off wating a little bit until it becomes clear where Naim is heading to with their classical range. Oversimplifying a little bit, there are basically three options: A) server+renderer and DAC in two boxes, B) server and renderer+DAC in two boxes and C) server, renderer and DAC in three boxes. I prefer A) and C) to B) for flexibility. I understand that taking the DAC out of the renderer (CD player, in those days) was also the original idea behind the Naim DAC, before they started supporting mainly B) type solutions. 

perfect summary... I am quite curious about NAIM's choice for "B"

B) would be a killer: an optimized server running roon to feed the new streamer line! WOW PLEASE NAIM ;-)

nbpf posted:

It might also pay off wating a little bit until it becomes clear where Naim is heading to with their classical range.

I'm not sure there is much "fog" with where Naim is heading ... the ND555 shows where they are heading - to "upgrading" the Classic streamers with the new Uniti streaming system but keeping the old Classic look.  The "unclear" is if once the ND555 is out if the rest are replaced over a 1 year or 3 year period (IMO).

Oversimplifying a little bit, there are basically three options: A) server+renderer and DAC in two boxes, B) server and renderer+DAC in two boxes and C) server, renderer and DAC in three boxes.

I understand that taking the DAC out of the renderer (CD player, in those days) was also the original idea behind the Naim DAC, before they started supporting mainly B) type solutions. 

The nDAC was a bit of out outlier for Naim as they were always very anti separating transport and DAC in the days of CD players - until that point they were maybe the only "high end" audio company who had never produced separate transport and DAC.  I would suggest that the ND line are just returning to their previous point of view - that separating the transport and DAC creates more problems than it solves; though with the ND line they have the flexibility by adding the digital inputs.

just pulled the trigger for a dedicated roon server based on i5 to see if the mac is the problem....keep you inform as soon as I'll have it...

T38.45 posted:

just pulled the trigger for a dedicated roon server based on i5 to see if the mac is the problem....keep you inform as soon as I'll have it...

I cant see how this would improve SQ. I just setup my NAS to run Roon alongside my i3 pc that runs Roon. I could tell no difference between them at all. If there is one its so insignificant I cant hear it, where the difference between uPnp and Roon is night and day. I wonder if its the fact that its adding another piece of equipment in the chain for Roon that causes it and its hitting my router at two points as to one point if just using the QNAP, but then I would see a difference between Roon on both I would have thought which I didn't

uPnp

Music files and music software on QNAP >Router> to Atom upnp client > output

Roon

Music files on QNAP > router>Roon PC reads files from NAS >Router> Atoms RAAT client >output

ok....so sonore and Atom sound better with upnp...than, it seems there's really a problem in roon protocol stack that kills SQ but oterwise this is strange, because it should only handle metadata...holy sh...t

It could be Naims implementation of RAAT is behind or its not using the same processing/filters in the DAC stage of the Atom as the native applications?. I cant account for Sonore as I don't have one. Funny all the the Sonore MicroRendu users on the Roon forums seem to swear by the SQ with Roon. 

did they compare upnp/dlna vs roon raat?

T38.45 posted:

just pulled the trigger for a dedicated roon server based on i5 to see if the mac is the problem....keep you inform as soon as I'll have it...

Good luck! I doubt that replacing the Roon server will make a significant difference but, plese, let us know how it goes on!

Eloise posted:

Oversimplifying a little bit, there are basically three options: A) server+renderer and DAC in two boxes, B) server and renderer+DAC in two boxes and C) server, renderer and DAC in three boxes.

I understand that taking the DAC out of the renderer (CD player, in those days) was also the original idea behind the Naim DAC, before they started supporting mainly B) type solutions. 

The nDAC was a bit of out outlier for Naim as they were always very anti separating transport and DAC in the days of CD players - until that point they were maybe the only "high end" audio company who had never produced separate transport and DAC.  I would suggest that the ND line are just returning to their previous point of view - that separating the transport and DAC creates more problems than it solves; though with the ND line they have the flexibility by adding the digital inputs.

Right, but they eventually got it right and the nDAC can still be used to convert digital data streams, no matter whether these are generated by UPnP renderers, network players, Roon endpoints or other devices. 

The problem with integrated transport+DAC solutions is that the transport component can easily become obsolete with time. We have witnessed this fact with the current Naim classical streamers, think for instance of the difficulties in integrating Tidal (let alone Qobuz and Roon!) in NDS, 272, etc. This is the main reason why I prefet A) and C) to B), as mentioned in my original post.

The other question is, if one accepts transport and DAC to be integrated in the same box, why not adding storage to that box? This would solve a number of obvious problems and allow the box to be used in wireless networks without limitations in terms of reliability or sound quality.   

nbpf posted:

The problem with integrated transport+DAC solutions is that the transport component can easily become obsolete with time. We have witnessed this fact with the current Naim classical streamers, think for instance of the difficulties in integrating Tidal (let alone Qobuz and Roon!) in NDS, 272, etc. This is the main reason why I prefet A) and C) to B), as mentioned in my original post.

 

The other question is, if one accepts transport and DAC to be integrated in the same box, why not adding storage to that box? This would solve a number of obvious problems and allow the box to be used in wireless networks without limitations in terms of reliability or sound quality.   

Well for all in one systems that’s what Naim has implemented with the Uniti line.  If it carried on in the ND555 remains to be seen but I suspect the streaming functions will be close to identical between Uniti Atom/Star/Nova and ND555.

I was a big fan of dac + digital front ends (aurender, mac, aries, sonore etc) to have max flexibility in terms of music service, formats etc....but I think I changed my view over the last 2-3 weeks. Imho a streamer has big advantages: it has less components- less points of failures- less tuning parameter and usually it's an optimized front/backend (ok, only the very good ones...).

Good, that's all settled then.  A blizzard of confusion to blind us all.  At least we can keep box swapping as we tinker with multiple architectures on the road to streaming nirvana!

Just in case I do need to add a fancy streaming computer (aka a Roon Core), I acquired a monster of a CISCO ethernet switch to replace the lovely simple Netgear GS108T that is now full.  As I look at the Cisco manuals with their acronyms that I don't begin to understand, I do wonder what have I done.... 

Foot tapper posted:

Just in case I do need to add a fancy streaming computer (aka a Roon Core), I acquired a monster of a CISCO ethernet switch to replace the lovely simple Netgear GS108T that is now full.  As I look at the Cisco manuals with their acronyms that I don't begin to understand, I do wonder what have I done.... 

If it has more than 8 ports it is probably fan cooled, I hope you can put it somewhere out of earshot!

T38.45 posted:

I was a big fan of dac + digital front ends (aurender, mac, aries, sonore etc) to have max flexibility in terms of music service, formats etc....but I think I changed my view over the last 2-3 weeks. Imho a streamer has big advantages: it has less components- less points of failures- less tuning parameter and usually it's an optimized front/backend (ok, only the very good ones...).

You are right to a certain degree a streamer with built in dac can be simpler if you just plug it in and go without expensive psu's. I used to have a UQ 2 and then an ND5XS and loved them both but now I have a SOtM sms-100 streaming renderer connected to a Chord 2Qute with bog standard cat 5 ethernet and USB cable  and that is it no switches no psu's no nas drive just a hired wired usb drive that can be disconnected when in not in use. The main beauty of this set up is that when used Qutest units start to appear on the used market I can upgrade to one if I wish.

I do not know if it would sound better with a cisco switch and all that but my experience with expensive cables has lead me to believe that I simply do not have the golden ears that some on possess and so I content myself with standard now.

I‘m going for a Auralic G2 now, seems that rendu is not the perfect solution for roon in my setup(!!!) . It is fantastic with lms squeezbox and upnp but lacks air , soundstage and colour with roon. I know this sounds banana but even my wife noticed this after 10sec listen to the same recording played over dlna and roon. I don‘t know why....maybe rendu needs more horsepower or has more jitter or too many components with roon....no clue... keep you informed folks!

Let us know how you get on with the Auralic G2, and if you demo against anything else......been thinking about one too.

Have a look at this thread:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...s-and-other-stories?