Chrispy Major Contributor Forum Donor. Don't see the need for either myself. VintageFlanker said:. As many say that silver cables sound better than copper ones. Joke aside: When there are two challengers, audiophiles tend to always prefer the outsider. The other being seen as some mainstream thing for ignorant beginners.
It happens that Roon is the most used overall or at least more represented worldwide. If it was the other way around, they would have called Roon sounding better. Then, usability, ecosystem, features are up to anyone to chose.
Chrispy said:. Then you are all good. Yep don't need the additional software to what I use already just to tie it together, I can do that on my own. Thanks for the link.
Went through but is not a published paper in a scientific journal. I liked more the discussion below the white paper tho.
I find that basing a discussion on the various subjective feelings of users not much use either Forum Donor.
Which one you prefer. Listening is the other half of the process which is personal and equally important if not more important. Observation is the foundation of science. BDWoody said:. I use Roon, but not based on any expectation of better sound quality. As long as the 'listening' part of the process has some needed controls.
Too often, that's the part that's missing Observation has no controls and the purpose is not to be provided as evidence but just as an observation. Raindog Major Contributor Forum Donor. I just like Roon. Yes it is somewhat expensive, but it glues together quite a few of my music-listening components across the house. Speaker systems in four different rooms and two headphone stations and two apple TVs that in reality are never used for music.
Qobuz, Tidal and my ripped CD collection. And a rather advanced DSP. Personally, I do not have experience with Audirvana to compare only read their reviews while deciding but have extensive 4-year experience with Auralic's Lightning DS aka LDS ecosystem. Last edited: May 21, We are not talking about subjective. We are talking about the possibility to put the softwares to the test with measurements.
If the observation is that one sounds better than the other, the controls would be needed to validate that. Most aren't interested in the actual validation of the observation. That's the difference between anecdote and evidence. I did an experiment to verify it a while ago. Do you have any results from your experiment? Ata Senior Member Forum Donor.
I think it is safe to assume that, everything else being equal, Audirvana 3. Roon has much better UI and feature set, but comes at a premium price. Audirvana Studio tries to close the gap, but they are many releases away from catching up on stability, UI polish and features. Jmudrick Senior Member. Joined Oct 7, Messages Likes Thanks, that makes sense.
Was forgetting about the HQP server requirement. I tried Audivarna for the first time the other week as there was fuss being made about the new version. Would not consistently see any of my endpoints and when it did it would always drop out. So I could not actually test the SQ and have not bothered trying to figure it out. It reminded me once again why I hate uPnP. All reasons why I bought a lifetime subscription. It seems distinctly more crystalline, which is hard to ignore.
Might give HQP a 30 day shot to see if I can have it all. It clearly sounds superior to my ears, in my system. I have both Roon and Audirvana 3. Yes A sounds much better, more analogue and lifelike then Roon. Roon though has a much better UI. Would be great if this two got together and joined forces.
