File Server for Roon & Rossini Setup

[udis]

Hi,

 

I am looking to learn more about how Rossini owners are serving files to their dacs. I am mostly interested in Roon setups.

 

Do you have roon core and file server separated? If so, where are the files stored (network and server configuration)? If not, what are you using for core and server?

 

Are you utilizing Rossini's ethernet input or usb with attached storage? 

 

Any other relevant information would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Udi

 

 

[AMP]

HI @udis

 

I've got 5 or 6 Roon cores running at any given moment and, honestly, find no real performance difference between using network-attached and local storage. My two primary cores are both 6th Generation Intel NUCs (i5). The home core is running ROCK and mounts its files from a Synology DS916+. The office core is running a cleaned-up install of Ubuntu Linux and has a locally-attached USB3 RAID array. The only reason that I'm not running ROCK there is that I also have minimserver installed for UPnP (which isn't possible on ROCK at the moment).

 

Benefits of NAS:

• Storage can be used for other useful things. In my case I use it as a general purpose file server as well as a Plex server.
• Integrated (easy) backup functionality. I know that my music files are backed up automatically and if I were super-paranoid I could even replicate them to the office.
• Very clean setup on the Roon server. Files are portable and also easily accessible to the other Roon cores I run at home.

Drawbacks of NAS:

• Performance is going to be directly related to network and NAS quality
• More expensive
• More to manage

 

 

Benefits of direct-attached:

• Generally more straightforward to setup.
• Easier to deal with if audio system is isolated from the rest of the network.
• Can be an all-in-one solution using a server with internal storage.
• Performance can be better if your network isn't up to snuff, but let's face it, at the typical bitrates involved for audio streaming a gigabit Ethernet link is just loafing along. DSD512 is under 50Mbit/sec.
• Typically less costly than NAS

Drawbacks of direct-attached

• Can be more difficult to manage depending on OS used on Roon core.
• Backups can be more difficult (again, depending on OS used).
• Storage can typically only be used for Roon core.

 

 

Having said all of that, my general recommendation is to use a good quality NAS (I like Synology and QNAP) for storage and a dedicated machine to run the Roon core. My preference is a NUC with ROCK or one of the Roon Nucleus boxes. Make sure the network is solid and you'll end up with a flexible solution that just works.

 

[udis]

Hi @AMP

 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply!

 

Although i am not a current Rosinni owner, i am seriously considering it and as part of my consideration looking to learn more about potential configurations. 

 

I currently have two different setups i've been experimenting with.

1. SonicTransport i5 as Roon Core, Macmini as file server (modded with MMK + JS2 Powered), feeding a dCS network bridge
2. Macmini as file server & Roon Core (modded with MMK + JS2 Powered) bridged with a dCS network bridge

 

My dilemma is this...

With option 1 i am opening myself to network activity, while option 2 i am combining Roon's heavy core processing with the file server, which apparently isn't ideal. Based on my listening tests (not very scientific), I concluded that #2 sounds better. However, i am not sure if this is due to the bridging and/or perhaps the SonicTransport is the weak link upstream. And perhaps the Rossini will yield entirely different results from the NB.

 

Have you compared NUC with Rock vs. a Nucleus box? Any experience with the sT? 

 

Regards,

Udi

 

[AMP]

4 hours ago, udis said:

With option 1 i am opening myself to network activity, while option 2 i am combining Roon's heavy core processing with the file server, which apparently isn't ideal.

 

All of the comments that I see relating to isolating network activity cause me some concern. A properly configured network should be able to get the data from point A to point B regardless of the number of devices on the network or how talkative they are. If this weren't true then roughly 99.999% of the infrastructure that we all rely on daily simply wouldn't work. From a networking and audio perspective there is no difference between the packets that make up an audio stream from Roon and the packets being generated when I hit the "Submit Reply" button on this post. Sure, there are some protocol differences, but the fundamental thing is the same -- some amount of data is getting chopped up into smaller pieces, sent across the wire (or air) and reassembled at the other end. This is all independent of playback, it's just how networks work.

 

Furthermore the rate of data transfer in streaming applications is extremely low in comparison to the total network bandwidth. As I alluded to above, streaming DSD512 uses less than 50Mbit/sec of bandwidth whereas Gigabit Ethernet has 1000Mbit/sec of bandwidth per port (the aggregate bandwith of the switch is far higher than that).

 

In other words, stop stressing about isolating devices as in many cases you're making the network dysfunctional or simply breaking the functionality of the product you're trying to "isolate."

 

As for Roon's processing there's no inherent benefit in locating the storage local to the core or on a NAS. Roon's processing load is essentially the same in either case and due to the nature of switched networks the only two ports seeing that traffic are the NAS and the core.

 

Using the DSD512 example (assuming you actually have a DSD512 file) you're now using 100Mbit out of 1000Mbit [except one of those is "into" the core and the other is "out" to the endpoint. Ethernet is full duplex so reads and writes happen simultaneously so in reality you're using 50Mbit / 1000Mbit on the in channel and 50Mbit / 1000Mbit on the out channel....but I digress]. Roon is only ever reading data from storage at the speed that it is being processed which is roughly equivalent to the data rate of the file itself (so roughly 1.4Mbit/sec for 16/44, less if it's in a compressed format like FLAC)

 

In my experience with Roon (and I have A LOT of experience with Roon) the hardware running the core has no influence on sound quality unless:

1. The hardware is so below spec that Roon simply can't keep up with the data transfer, but that's not going to be degraded sound, it's going to be dropouts (which do sound bad).
2. The core is connected to the system via USB or HDMI. There are grounding and noise issues here.
3. The core is some massively powerful machine with poor shielding that's sitting too close to the system and its cabling (EMI and RFI issues)

 

5 hours ago, udis said:

Have you compared NUC with Rock vs. a Nucleus box? Any experience with the sT?

 

NUC with ROCK and Nucleus are essentially the same thing. RoonOS is the same on Nucleus and ROCK and both are NUC boards from Intel. From a performance standpoint both should be identical. Nucleus has the benefit of being fanless for those situations in which it needs to be in the same room as the system (or other quiet place) and it has support both from your dealer and Roon. Plus, frankly, Nucleus looks cool and puts a little more money Roon's way which is always a good thing to help keep them healthy and productive.

 

I don't have any first-hand experience with the Sonic Transporter. It's a well-spec'd Intel box running a stripped-down version of Linux with a convenient configuration and management interface. The guys at SGC provide great support from what I hear and have made some investments into making the product easy to use and manage. Based on my experience with Roon on Linux it should be a great way to run a core. Sonically it should be no different than Running Roon on ROCK, Nucleus, Mac OS, Windows, etc.