Roon on QNAP HS-251+ vs dedicated CAPS or high end server (Innuos / Melco etc}

[BigAlMc]

Hi All, 

 

After 2 frustrating attempts I've finally conquered Roon 

 

Attempt 1 - core installed on Dell XPS months ago. Could not get it to see my renderer for the life of me and threw in the towel 

 

Attempt 2 - installed again on XPS because my new DAC happened to be Roon Ready so figured it was worth a shot. Sound quality terrible tho and kept cutting out. Probably due to many factors including laptop noise, Windows not being optimised and sending over busy WiFi rather than wired. 

 

Saw enough in the whole Roon user experience to warrant attempt 3 and to my shock found it very easy to install it on my QNAP HS-251+ (2GB) NAS (running a 1 TB Samsung SSD). 

 

Setup is Roon Server on the NAS. Ethernet to the DAC via a switch. And using my Android phone as a control point.

 

Sound quality is great! 

 

I'm also looking to add optical isolation to the ethernet path as per my previous post:

 

So I've read all the stuff about Roon needing 4GB RAM. And clearly a lot of people here go to serious effort and expense to optimise there setups for Roon.  

 

So I guess I'm wondering if I should call it job done and sit back and enjoy. Or whether I'm missing anything. 

 

In terms of Roon functionality with just Server and Control point am I missing any UX? 

 

In terms of the all important SQ. So far it's sounding great to me. I've streamed my own Hi Res PCM Flac files flawlessly and Tidal Masters MQA. And this is on a £600 NAS/SSD option. 

 

So I'm wondering what a £1500/2000 dedicated server / fanless computer brings to the table? 

 

Same question for the Innuos / Melco and those sort of audiophile servers? 

 

Is it a pure SQ thing where on paper at least they outperform my QNAP? Or is it more options like being able to push via USB rather than pull via Ethernet? 

 

For the record I'm most likely to stick with the NAS. Unless of course you knowledgable folks can convince me there's a night and day difference and leave me with a dilemma 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

 

[firedog]

I think the Roon Server for the QNAP is a version specially for the QNAP, so it should work fine. I'd guess your NAS is fine as long as you don't try heavy duty upsampling or DSP - in that case it will probably run out of gas.

 

If you are happy with your setup maybe you should forget the audiophilia nervosa and just keep your setup.

 

On the other hand, lots us feel a specialized, dedicated Roon playback device added to SQ. For some a little, for others a lot. That to me would make more sense than a more expensive server. In the "2 piece" PC setup the SQ of the server pretty much doesn't matter, as the signal is just sent over Ethernet to the specialized playback PC/renderer.

 

If you want to try that route, try borrowing one first or getting one on audition from a dealer. Shouldn't be a problem in the UK to get something for audition. You could try something like a Cubox box - very inexpesive. Or for more money, something like a SonicOrbiter SE, microRendu, or SOtM SMS 200.  Or one of those specialized playback units like a Melco. As I noted, your server is fine as the source for this as long as you don't start doing some sort of heavy duty signal manipulation that requires a heavy duty server. 

 

 

[BigAlMc]

18 hours ago, firedog said:

I think the Roon Server for the QNAP is a version specially for the QNAP, so it should work fine. I'd guess your NAS is fine as long as you don't try heavy duty upsampling or DSP - in that case it will probably run out of gas.

 

If you are happy with your setup maybe you should forget the audiophilia nervosa and just keep your setup.

 

On the other hand, lots us feel a specialized, dedicated Roon playback device added to SQ. For some a little, for others a lot. That to me would make more sense than a more expensive server. In the "2 piece" PC setup the SQ of the server pretty much doesn't matter, as the signal is just sent over Ethernet to the specialized playback PC/renderer.

 

If you want to try that route, try borrowing one first or getting one on audition from a dealer. Shouldn't be a problem in the UK to get something for audition. You could try something like a Cubox box - very inexpesive. Or for more money, something like a SonicOrbiter SE, microRendu, or SOtM SMS 200.  Or one of those specialized playback units like a Melco. As I noted, your server is fine as the source for this as long as you don't start doing some sort of heavy duty signal manipulation that requires a heavy duty server. 

 

 

 

Hi @firedog Thanks for the reply. 

 

To provide a bit more info the DAC is the PS Audio directstream and I have the PS Audio Network Bridge II. 

 

It's actually the £800 network bridge that's "Roon Ready" in this setup and not the more expensive DAC. 

 

I'd seen a lot of positive commentary on the SonicOrbiter and the MicroRendu in particular. But I'd ruled these options out as I figured the job they were offering to do was already being handled by the bridge. Hence I was focusing on the server side. 

 

So assuming I can park my "audiophilia nervosa"  (not that safe an assumption!) on the server side of things, the question becomes is the Network Bridge the best player or do I want to look into a better Roon Ready player to drive the DAC. 

 

I'd seen some posts on the PS Audio forums about the Bryston BDP-2 and an Auralic player performing better than the bridge but these were a couple years old. I'll perhaps follow up on those forums to see what the current thinking is.  

 

Meantime is the MicroRendu doing anything for SQ that my Network Bridge isn't? 

 

And if I wanted to focus on SQ and was happy to invest more than the cost of the MicroRendu then any thoughts on what players to look at for an optimal Roon Ready implementation? 

 

Sorry but the nervosa is peaking! 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

[firedog]

Don't know if one of the above devices would improve your SQ, as your DAC is ethernet Roon Ready; I doubt there is any advantage to one of these devices in such a setup, but I've never compared. Essentially your "bridge" is doing much the same thing that these devices do, but skipping the ethernet to USB conversion, which would actually seem to be an advantage for the Bridge.  Maybe someone else has compared them. 

 

You could ask on the PSAudio forum about any recent comparisons of the Bridge vs. other devices, or if there is any tweak to improve the sound of a server direct to the bridge. Paul McGowan has stated that the Bridge sounds better than using his own LanRover ethernet to USB converter. 

 

So maybe it is time to give up on the audiophile nervosa...