Roon 1.3 Adds DSP PEQ, Sonos, Multi-channel, and more

[Kal Rubinson]

It looks like it's just like OpenDRC -- you can use REW to calculate and generate a file for import into Roon.

I know that but I was responding to posts that did not acknowledge it. For example, it is hardly a replacement for DEQX.

 

[amirm]

Thank you. So a a media PC would be necessary then.

Yes but you can use Tidal itself on the phone which is what I do.

 

[March Audio]

Thank you. So a a media PC would be necessary then.

I run roon core on my nas which does stay on 24 7.

I vpn inyo the nas from work or from my phone so I can use roon and see my collection ot Tidal anywhere

 

[dallasjustice]

Roon+Acourate>DEQX.

I know that but I was responding to posts that did not acknowledge it. For example, it is hardly a replacement for DEQX.

 

[watchnerd]

I know that but I was responding to posts that did not acknowledge it. For example, it is hardly a replacement for DEQX.

How so?

If you can use REW or Acourate to generate a convolution or filter, which can then be imported into Roon, how is it less?

Just because you have to use two different tools?

 

[amirm]

DEQX performs independent driver, crossover and room correction. Doing all of this manually using REW is a lot of work and a lot of complexity. The "smarts" is what is missing.

 

[dallasjustice]

Whenever there's a "convenient" black box solution offered to audiophiles, it is always lower performance and offers less flexibility than ala carte software+pro audio hardware solutions. I've yet to see an exception to this rule. I've owned and used a DEQX and I've used much better solutions. The cost for each approach is the same. But dealers and reviewers love the black box solutions because that's where the money is for them. I don't blame them. They have to make a living. But Black box is never the highest performance solution to the problem.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Whenever there's a "convenient" black box solution offered to audiophiles, it is always lower performance and offers less flexibility than ala carte software+pro audio hardware solutions. I've yet to see an exception to this rule. I've owned and used a DEQX and I've used much better solutions. The cost for each approach is the same. But dealers and reviewers love the black box solutions because that's where the money is for them. I don't blame them. They have to make a living. But Black box is never the highest performance solution to the problem.

I will not argue with you about this. Clearly, for a hand's-on person like you, this is true and, undoubtedly, true also in an absolute sense. However, in wider considerations, the appeal and efficacy of a system for most real-world users are dependent on relative access and ease-of-use. In this specific instance, I'd guess that the number of serious PEQ users on Roon (not talking about just using it for tone controls) is small and, probably, tiny compared the the potential number of users that would be attracted by a more integrated application.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I will not argue with you about this. Clearly, for a hand's-on person like you, this is true and, undoubtedly, true also in an absolute sense. However, in wider considerations, the appeal and efficacy of a system for most real-world users are dependent on relative access and ease-of-use. In this specific instance, I'd guess that the number of serious PEQ users on Roon (not talking about just using it for tone controls) is small and, probably, tiny compared the the potential number of users that would be attracted by a more integrated application.

And, fwiw, the reason that I write about such things (e.g., DEQX, DiracLive, etc.) is that our readers are, by and large, not technical and not DIYers and I write for them.

 

[oivavoi]

And, fwiw, the reason that I write about such things (e.g., DEQX, DiracLive, etc.) is that our readers are, by and large, not technical and not DIYers and I write for them.

That applies to me, at least.

My perspective is as follows: I think Dirac live provides me with 95 percent of the performance one can get with Acourate, Audiolense etc (I'm only using it in the bass region). At the same time, learning how to use Dirac live - implemented on a tiny box from Minidsp - takes probably 5 percent (or less) of the time that it takes to learn how to properly use Acourate or Audiolense. For a non-technical guy such as me, the ratio of investement/profit seems heavily skewed in Dirac's favor.

 

[watchnerd]

And, fwiw, the reason that I write about such things (e.g., DEQX, DiracLive, etc.) is that our readers are, by and large, not technical and not DIYers and I write for them.

I always find it interesting that the German hi-fi magazines take a very different approach, focusing much more on education, with much more technical detail and explanations in their reviews.

 

[amirm]

And, fwiw, the reason that I write about such things (e.g., DEQX, DiracLive, etc.) is that our readers are, by and large, not technical and not DIYers and I write for them.

I think you need to add laziness to it as that describes me . In my older age I just don't have the patience anymore to fiddle with things if a turnkey solution does it. To wit, I bought a workbench for my woodshop instead of building one. I don't want to be using my woodworking time to build woodworking tools.

That said, now that I see the PEQ in Roon, I will invest in the time to see if I can match Dirac in bass area. If so, it would be great to get rid of it as currently it is incompatible with my Berkeley alpha USB bridge.

 

[Purité Audio]

Laziness and incompetence here ,Christof Faller ( Illusonic) produces a much better sound in my room, than I ever managed with Trinnov, Tact, or Dirac, the Illusonic has a new 'virtual headphone' feature, where the Illusonic guys can 'hear' your system.
Keith

 

[Sal1950]

Add in CHEAP for me. I currently have Audyssey MultEQ XT built into my Marantz AV7701 Pre/Pro and it was FREE. I does a very good job both audibly and measurably in making a big improvement in the bass range sound of my 5.1 satellite-dual subwoofer rig.
At some point going forward I may upgrade to something more intensive like the AcourateDRC or DiracLive combined with their proprietary miniDSP boxes but not imminently. The complications of MCH make the change even harder to work out. Or I might just upgrade my MCH PrePro to something using a better DRC system, like the ones using Dirac Live. The thought of having to do any of this in long division using REW or full Acourate makes my brain hurt.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and for now I'm reasonably happy with Audyessy XT's results.
YMMV

 

[amirm]

In other words.... we are a bunch of losers.

 

[watchnerd]

I view it also as a matter of architecture.

Stand-alone software tends to evolve at a quicker pace than embedded software, and embedded software tends to evolve faster than circuit revisions (which may not be capable of being retrofitted at all).

Those parts of my system that are likely to most benefit from Moore's law and its cousins, I want to be abstracted away from the dedicated audio-only hardware as much as possible.

I prefer to use a standalone NAS (which I can upgrade at will using commodity parts) and general purpose computer running software of my choice (Roon, JRiver, Alsamixer, whatever), connected using commodity networking to various endpoints around the house.

The flexibility to use what pieces I want, upgrade or change them piecemeal, and the relative bang for the buck, is far superior for me than buying, say, an all-in-0ne music server, which has vendor lock-in and obsolescence issues.

Software is now a system component, and I prefer it to be architected as "separates".

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I always find it interesting that the German hi-fi magazines take a very different approach, focusing much more on education, with much more technical detail and explanations in their reviews.

Granted and, if there was a decent market in the US for a more technical, more hand's-on approach to consumer audio, there would be one and I'd buy it.

 

[Purité Audio]

In the UK. At least, measurements do not sell magazines, apparently.
When I was a lad,reviews consisted entirely of specifications ,measurements and the only nod to subjectivism was a comparison to a known reference, QUAD ESL for example.
Keith

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

I view it also as a matter of architecture.

Stand-alone software tends to evolve at a quicker pace than embedded software, and embedded software tends to evolve faster than circuit revisions (which may not be capable of being retrofitted at all).

Those parts of my system that are likely to most benefit from Moore's law and its cousins, I want to be abstracted away from the dedicated audio-only hardware as much as possible.

I prefer to use a standalone NAS (which I can upgrade at will using commodity parts) and general purpose computer running software of my choice (Roon, JRiver, Alsamixer, whatever), connected using commodity networking to various endpoints around the house.

The flexibility to use what pieces I want, upgrade or change them piecemeal, and the relative bang for the buck, is far superior for me than buying, say, an all-in-0ne music server, which has vendor lock-in and obsolescence issues.

Software is now a system component, and I prefer it to be architected as "separates".

I completely agree, but I think we both understand this approach is not for everyone. There are integration issues, and, with software, those can sometimes be maddening. Help in that is not always easy to find.

About 3 years or so ago, maybe more, not sure, as a dedicated listener to hi rez Mch, I committed to PC playback from my large JRiver library of DSD and BD rips on a 52 TB NAS. I have no CDs in my library, though I could quite easily. First, I used HDMI from the PC into a Mch Integra preamp/processor I had been using for years. Many friends of mine still do that with their Anthem, Marantz, etc. prepros, though I think HDMI may be too much of a sonic compromise compared to USB. This is consistent with Amir's findings.

But, I soon realizied that JRiver software functionality included pretty much everything I needed that the prepro offered, except 2 things: a DAC and comprehensive DSP EQ. I acquired an Exasound E28 7.1 channel DAC and Dirac Live's Mch version on trial. My own listening comparisons, together with the ears of some friends for confirmation, convinced me that this was easily much better sounding than my prepro including its Audyssey XT/32 with an Audyssey Pro calibration. Kal's reviews of the E28/Dirac were also to me quite compelling in deciding to try this route, since he has long term credibility with me (unlike most every other reviewer on the planet).

So, sonically I was really in a much better place, and I remain there quite deliriously happy. Mostly, I select music using an iPad with JRiver's excellent JRemote interface, But, I also view my system as an integrated audio and video system. Music predominates my use of it, but there are occasions when I want to watch a Blu-ray or when I want to watch Cable TV. JRiver also handles that with certain 3rd party software, such as MakeMKV software to decrypt BDs, and HDHomerun Prime plus a Fios Cable card in their hardware/software to enable cable TV. The video side proved much bumpier in integration issues and it took months to fine tune that to an acceptable level. But, even watching the Super Bowl or Masterpiece Theater or an opera or concert Blu-Ray with the great sound my system provides is a great pleasure.

But, I am there now quite happily but with some quirks I can work around and live with, though audio quality is substantially better and video quality is at least as good as I had before. Video is still provided to my TV monitor via HDMI.

Old system:
Integra 80.2 prepro with Audyssey and input sources all via HDMI:
- Oppo BD/SACD/CD player
- Comcast or Fios cable box
- PC with network NAS library using JRiver

New system:
PC controlled by JRiver with Dirac Live Room EQ plugin software using input sources:
-NAS library
-Internal CD/BD optical drives
-HD Homerun Prime cable card tuner with Fios 3 tuner Cable Card via Ethernet

The prepro, player and cable box are now out of my system, though I still have an Oppo 103 for SACD ripping to the library via Ethernet. Amps and speakers are the same as before. Less hardware, more software yields better sound and more freedom from hardware obsolescence, in my opinion. To achieve comparable levels of sound quality would take much more $$$, I think. I will gladly put up with a few quirks, mainly on the video side used occasionally. The PC, incidentally, is an aging $1,000 tower with an older Intel I7 chip and 16GB of RAM, nothing too fancy. It is in an adjoining room so I do not hear it.

 

[amirm]

I still have an Oppo 103 for SACD ripping to the library via Ethernet.

First thanks for the detail write-up. I am still examining my choices for multi-channel playback and that was useful.

This caught my eye though. How are you ripping SACD this way?