2 pc music server
- Thread starter Alrainbow
- Start date
still-one
Active member
I am not sure I understand what input you are seeking.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
I have a fairly powerful Windows PC running Roon and HQPlayer. I have stripped out every bit of un-needed software. It contains 2x M.2 drives and another 2x SSD's. The 4 drives contain all my music and is served from there (no network streaming of music files). My second PC is actually a Microsoft Surface 6 PC/Tablet. It runs the Roon controller side of things. This setup works like a charm!
Mr Peabody
Well-known member
My friend had two PC set up, the one running the software was stripped of any unnecessary funtions and software as to be just for music playback. He had a lifetime subscription for Roon before I even saw others talk about it, he stays up on this stuff.
Another friend lent him an Aries G1 to try in place of his computer, it bested the tricked out computer and now he uses a G2. Not promoting Auralic, just saying if open minded and wanting best results I'd try both ways to see which you find best. And, of course, there's many other options that do the same thing as the G2, that jus happened to be what my friend ended up with after trying.
Another friend lent him an Aries G1 to try in place of his computer, it bested the tricked out computer and now he uses a G2. Not promoting Auralic, just saying if open minded and wanting best results I'd try both ways to see which you find best. And, of course, there's many other options that do the same thing as the G2, that jus happened to be what my friend ended up with after trying.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
One thing that makes a huge difference is make sure that the server machine is only running Roon Core, not the full application, GUI and all. This was originally called Roon Server, now they call it Roon Core (absolutely huge difference). Also, HQPlayer really does sound better, so having Roon as the origination, playback controller, metadata provider and then handing off to HQPlayer as the playback engine really does improve the sound quality quite dramatically.
Alkyogre
Member
Does anyone has experience with the Diretta protocol? Some people say it is the best sounding protocol on the market. https://www.diretta.link
Apparently it is all in the eye of the beholder (and/or system dependent)
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Of course it is in the eye of the beholder/personal preferences, but there is a really good reason why HQPlayer has the following it has and why companies such as Roon have directed added HQPlayer links within their software.
There of course are all kinds of stuff out there that claim to be the best. Some are probably very good and some have a cult type following, but few have the ratings and followings of primer products on the market. Usually there are some pretty sound reasons why.
There of course are all kinds of stuff out there that claim to be the best. Some are probably very good and some have a cult type following, but few have the ratings and followings of primer products on the market. Usually there are some pretty sound reasons why.
I was not familiar with HQPlayer and just took a look. Certainly looks very pro, based on descriptions and functionality.
Can you clarify how HQPlayer is used when Roon is in the mix? Or Lumin? Does Roon get relegated to just being the user interface/controller, while HQPlayer handles the "processing and streaming to the end-point"? If so, how do you keep Roon from overlapping that same processing/streaming? Why use it (Roon) at all in that case?
With something like Lumin, does the Lumin hardware just become the end-point for the stream sent by HQPlayer?
I ask because, to bring things back to this thread, I tend to be more purist when it comes to "add the least processing and layers" to the stream as possible. For me at least, I have trouble seeing how additional processing makes things better, other than it may well "make things sound better" to a particular person (with EQ, DSP etc).
Which I think, is sort of what you're concluding. There is no "objectively" better, just what someone prefers. Me, I prefer the music go straight to the Lumin, using the Lumin app (whether from NAS/L1 or Qobuz), over adding-in Roon. I could be crazy though. (Aren't we all?)
Can you clarify how HQPlayer is used when Roon is in the mix? Or Lumin? Does Roon get relegated to just being the user interface/controller, while HQPlayer handles the "processing and streaming to the end-point"? If so, how do you keep Roon from overlapping that same processing/streaming? Why use it (Roon) at all in that case?
With something like Lumin, does the Lumin hardware just become the end-point for the stream sent by HQPlayer?
I ask because, to bring things back to this thread, I tend to be more purist when it comes to "add the least processing and layers" to the stream as possible. For me at least, I have trouble seeing how additional processing makes things better, other than it may well "make things sound better" to a particular person (with EQ, DSP etc).
Which I think, is sort of what you're concluding. There is no "objectively" better, just what someone prefers. Me, I prefer the music go straight to the Lumin, using the Lumin app (whether from NAS/L1 or Qobuz), over adding-in Roon. I could be crazy though. (Aren't we all?)
Randy Myers
Well-known member
HQPlayer's GUI is bad, really bad 
... It's playback engine is good, really good and about the finest up-sampling available. Roon has HQPlayer interface built in. You can choose it as an audio zone. Roon remains as your interface, your GUI. It controls what you play, playlists, etc., etc. Even many of your streaming services can be controlled from Roon. Roon also provides the finest metadata and user interface on the market, in my view. Roon hands the signal off to HQPlayer for the final playback/output to your DAC.
I agree, I am also a purest at heart. However for digital music playback you simply cannot beat Roon's control and interface. HQPlayer is pure and simply a fantastic playback engine. It is renowned and very popular among digital audiophiles. Both software products together make a fantastic digital playback setup and are designed to work together.
From there, yes people have their preferences and no one system is "the best" for everyone. For me this setup is "the best".
... It's playback engine is good, really good and about the finest up-sampling available. Roon has HQPlayer interface built in. You can choose it as an audio zone. Roon remains as your interface, your GUI. It controls what you play, playlists, etc., etc. Even many of your streaming services can be controlled from Roon. Roon also provides the finest metadata and user interface on the market, in my view. Roon hands the signal off to HQPlayer for the final playback/output to your DAC.I agree, I am also a purest at heart. However for digital music playback you simply cannot beat Roon's control and interface. HQPlayer is pure and simply a fantastic playback engine. It is renowned and very popular among digital audiophiles. Both software products together make a fantastic digital playback setup and are designed to work together.
From there, yes people have their preferences and no one system is "the best" for everyone. For me this setup is "the best".
I have a variety of playback software available (some only on a trial basis) and I have not tried the latest edition of Roon, but so far Stylus continues to sound the best to me. From what I have read and heard, if I add another computer for Stylus software only it will sound even better.
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Each computer in the signal/data chain adds the potential for noise from the power supplies and noise from the ethernet data flow.
Given that stylus is not a demanding program to run I would be shocked if a 2 box system sounded better than 1.
Alkyogre
Member
Was interested in the build of that Euphony Summus music server. Looks like my audioserver, except that galvanisated PS Audio board, actually it is a gen 8 nuc board with Akasa plato case with an adjusted front for that audio board.
2 things that can be improved, and don't really understand why Euphony did not do that
- the ssd containing does not come with any specs, my best audioserver uses for the m2 ssd a Samsung 970 Pro. That is the best Samsung m2 SSD and uses 1bit/cell. could not find the ssd euphony uses, but I think it is the cheapest, and uses 3 bits/cell. Best is of course 1 bit/cell. It is easy to solve, get a samsung pro ssd and install Euphony on that.
- the ssd itself can also be passively cooled, Akasa has aluminium heatsinks for that, that need to be placed on the ssd. In my country only 10 euro. Akasa Thermal Solution
Here's one reviewer's opinion
The Euphony Audio Summus Endpoint Review How do you improve upon digital perfection? Review By Tom Gibbs Of Positive Feedback
And of course the developer of Stylus thinks it runs better on a 2 pc setup. Neither of these opinions can be said to be unbiased, though. The Euphony 2 pc system optimally uses only one power supply for both pc's and they are connected by a short Ethernet cable, none of which necessarily means better sound. If I try it sometime I'll let you know my impressions, but it probably won't happen soon; tape playback improvements come first.
Alkyogre
Member
A second Euphony pc using as bridge is purely marketing. It still is an adjusted nuc for a high end price. A dedicated streamer from another brand as bridge has a much better build then this Summus
and the first pc, the streamer does not need the analog outputs and it is technically the same as my server, for more then twice the money. Beside that, there are servers available with audiophilic boards, audio philic sata cables, separate oxco clocks, and liquid cooling.
For both those summus there are other alternatives available that can even do a better job, or are cheaper
and the first pc, the streamer does not need the analog outputs and it is technically the same as my server, for more then twice the money. Beside that, there are servers available with audiophilic boards, audio philic sata cables, separate oxco clocks, and liquid cooling.
For both those summus there are other alternatives available that can even do a better job, or are cheaper
Looking at Small Green Computer, the best I can come up with is a similar price (or slightly higher) for their sale bundle if one adds to it the cost of Stylus. If you don’t buy Stylus but use different music playing software then the SGC bundle is less expensive, although one still will probably buy music playing software in addition to Roon (which BTW does not work well with my music collection). If I ever can get Roon to recognize and play all my local music files that could change my calculation. It may work out differently in your country.
I wonder if your issue is related to having Roon properly pointing to your hard drive and/or “mapping” your drive in the computer where you have Roon Core running.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
That was my thought. I have never had an issue with Roon recognizing any of my files. Yes, some classical may have meta data issues, but they all play fine.
I assume you have setup your storage.... settings/storage, add in all folders you want Roon to watch. I have 5-6 different folders on 4 drives that were added to my Roon storage settings. I even have one that I enable or disable sometimes. You can tell Roon to watch these folders and any album/file that I put in is automatically available within Roon...
I assume you have setup your storage.... settings/storage, add in all folders you want Roon to watch. I have 5-6 different folders on 4 drives that were added to my Roon storage settings. I even have one that I enable or disable sometimes. You can tell Roon to watch these folders and any album/file that I put in is automatically available within Roon...