Best music software?

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,661
594
480
Round Rock, TX
There is a misunderstanding room sever not room GUI
Use room to pick hq player as an end point or output.
This Is best sound and while roon has gotten better so has hq player
No ona two pc setup it’s even better but still must be roon sever
Roon GUI is too bloated. Now if you choose to use a sanore there is no harm and it may be even better
I also recomend a net work isolator like

En http://www.emosystems.com/product/en-30/
This isolates your network ina true manor no chipset just a transformer

Thanks but I'm a bit confused on the PC setup. I have 1 PC with Roon + HQPlayer, I use the Roon GUI which connects to the local HQPlayer to an ultrarendu to DAC. What would be split onto 2 PCs? Roon on 1 PC and HQplayer on another I guess?
 

Koegz

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2016
98
89
155
systems.audiogon.com
Hi Steve N. Empirical Audio,
If I understand you correctly? You are suggesting, if I use a well designed USB dac interface and high quality master clock ?(done right), it competes or beats all other options? It’s the dac/clock interface/quality that makes the difference. Your linn/kinsky/miniserver is another way of solving the same issue from a different direction. If I understand you correctly?
Please correct me if I misunderstood.
p.kogan
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
Thanks but I'm a bit confused on the PC setup. I have 1 PC with Roon + HQPlayer, I use the Roon GUI which connects to the local HQPlayer to an ultrarendu to DAC. What would be split onto 2 PCs? Roon on 1 PC and HQplayer on another I guess?
Depends on wether you need to upsample / reformat the data. I tried HQ v Soon, and see no advantage with HQ, if you don't need to upsample.
 

dr k

VIP/Donor
Aug 4, 2016
218
102
260
California
Not trying to rain on “proper servers”, but they’re nothing but windows based PCs inside with supposedly upgraded components for music playback no? From several insiders who are computer and software engineers, the quad core Mac Mini is better suited for audio playback due to its low voltage operation and therefore less electrically noisy operation. The design of the printed circuit board of the Mac Mini is leagues ahead of standard PC boards used in these high end servers. As someone already suggested, a Mac Mini server using a battery power supply is the way to go, and I would add it will probably surpass almost all high end “proper servers”. I’ve been using a dedicated Mac Mini by dB Audiolabs with its rewritten OS code for audio playback and battery power supply for past several years, and I compare it to other high end turn tables, not other proper servers.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
IMHO current servers have an intrinsic problem - their centralized architecture, where one machine carries all the duties, including cleaning and formatting data in the specific mode needed for the DAC - AES/EBU, USB or Ethernet.

I can not understand why some good designer does not simply design an unit that gets the data stream from a bit exact server (USB or Ethernet) and delivers it in a proper format with a latency of a few tens of second, free from server interference. Why should the sound quality obtained from the data stream depend on the software the server is runing or on the tuning of the operating system? Or why we see servers using expensive capacitors usually used in analog signal coupling in their power supplies!
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Because reading the data off a computer is a lot more complex than reading it off a CD (reading data stream off somewhere).

And it is the software (multiple layers of it), not the hardware, that handles the bits and passes them forward, either via network or via locally attached (digital) output. So, yes, the software matter, as does the rest of the software running on the same machine.

The current client/server model works fine and is close to ideal, where you have the heavy lifting being done elsewhere on the network, with a thin, simple client, close to the DAC, receiving the bits and passing them forward to the DAC. In this model, data is pushed to the DAC, not the other way around.

The quality of the final (analog) output depends on the software(s) being used. Even though I'm well versed in computers, I can't begin to understand why that's so, and if I had to guess, it's has to do with the way computers (and the operating systems that run them) allocate CPU time to each individual task, and how that tasking can potentially ruin the timing of the bitstream being sent forward.

This can be easily observed by running certain scripts folks have come up with that disable a lot of the background processes and even entire subsets of MacOS/Windows, and then hearing the resulting improvement in sound quality.

With Linux, you can actually "roll your own" operating system, having none of the superfluous stuff from the start.

Hardware matters, but so does the software. And that's why manufacturers should focus on both, the challenge being that software is an entirely new skill set, alien to the high-end audio industry...
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Because reading the data off a computer is a lot more complex than reading it off a CD (reading data stream off somewhere).

And it is the software (multiple layers of it), not the hardware, that handles the bits and passes them forward, either via network or via locally attached (digital) output. So, yes, the software matter, as does the rest of the software running on the same machine.

The current client/server model works fine and is close to ideal, where you have the heavy lifting being done elsewhere on the network, with a thin, simple client, close to the DAC, receiving the bits and passing them forward to the DAC. In this model, data is pushed to the DAC, not the other way around.

The quality of the final (analog) output depends on the software(s) being used. Even though I'm well versed in computers, I can't begin to understand why that's so, and if I had to guess, it's has to do with the way computers (and the operating systems that run them) allocate CPU time to each individual task, and how that tasking can potentially ruin the timing of the bitstream being sent forward.

This can be easily observed by running certain scripts folks have come up with that disable a lot of the background processes and even entire subsets of MacOS/Windows, and then hearing the resulting improvement in sound quality.

With Linux, you can actually "roll your own" operating system, having none of the superfluous stuff from the start.

Hardware matters, but so does the software. And that's why manufacturers should focus on both, the challenge being that software is an entirely new skill set, alien to the high-end audio industry...

The reasons and reality you refer just fuel my argument - if the current system is so fragile, why insisting on it?

Remember that after the data is read from the computer and is on a stream it is much less complex than a CD!
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Why insist? Because it's software! It's easy to iterate, try new things. That's why there's so many new "companies" doing servers. Just take commodity hardware, slap some software on it, and mess around with it until it sounds good :)

Now, see how many new companies are out there manufacturing CD transports. Not many :)

The potential is there, and as I said, it's a whole new world that has opened up for high-end audio companies to develop on.

Nothing in streaming audio is less complex than a CD. Guess why? Because of the software involved. A computer, no matter how pared down or simplified, is still a much more complex device (hard and software-wise) than what's inside a CD player. CD player "software" takes very little memory (kilobytes), and can run on 80s processors.

Roon had a great idea with their ROCK, but that's basically a Linux distribution, tweaked and pre-loaded with Roon. And that took care of optimizing one end of the chain, the server (Roon Core). This is similar to what other vendors have done.

What I'd like to see them do is come up with a Roon Endpoint-only version of ROCK, even slimmer, perhaps even eschewing Linux altogether for a bare-bores operating system of their own creating (a Real Time OS would be neat). If you make the OS slim enough, you'll be able to have that run on hardware small enough, and built it INSIDE a DAC, bypassing the need for an external interface altogether.

This is pretty much what MSB had to do with their Renderer, from scratch. Come up with hardware+software small enough to fit into their standard module, and powerful enough to do Roon endpoint chores.

I truly believe we're just in the beginning of this whole new category of products, and as more brands acquire the necessary skillset, more exciting, and fabulous sounding, products will arrive!
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Why insist? Because it's software! It's easy to iterate, try new things. That's why there's so many new "companies" doing servers. Just take commodity hardware, slap some software on it, and mess around with it until it sounds good :) (...)

Thanks for saying it so clearly. It fits my definition of server voodoo. :)


(...) I truly believe we're just in the beginning of this whole new category of products, and as more brands acquire the necessary skillset, more exciting, and fabulous sounding, products will arrive!

I hope so. But I find frustrating that after so many years of computer audio we find we are just in the beginning of such a simple task - deliver a proper bit stream to a DAC. I have had great and enjoyable sound from CD players since I owned a Mark Levinson ML31 transport.

BTW, did you compare the sound quality of the current MSB transport playing CDs with the equivalent playback of a redbook file using a server? I could not not find any report of such comparison in the net.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
IMHO current servers have an intrinsic problem - their centralized architecture, where one machine carries all the duties, including cleaning and formatting data in the specific mode needed for the DAC - AES/EBU, USB or Ethernet.
Cleaning? Where did that come from?
Anyway, the major role is the organization and access of the library.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,661
594
480
Round Rock, TX
Depends on wether you need to upsample / reformat the data. I tried HQ v Soon, and see no advantage with HQ, if you don't need to upsample.
If I'm interpreting your reply correctly, the only advantage to seperating to 2: PCs is the benefit of offloading upsampling to a dedicated PC, correct? Also, the last time I compared Roon to HQplayer, I liked HQplayer better.
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,661
594
480
Round Rock, TX
Not trying to rain on “proper servers”, but they’re nothing but windows based PCs inside with supposedly upgraded components for music playback no? From several insiders who are computer and software engineers, the quad core Mac Mini is better suited for audio playback due to its low voltage operation and therefore less electrically noisy operation. The design of the printed circuit board of the Mac Mini is leagues ahead of standard PC boards used in these high end servers. As someone already suggested, a Mac Mini server using a battery power supply is the way to go, and I would add it will probably surpass almost all high end “proper servers”. I’ve been using a dedicated Mac Mini by dB Audiolabs with its rewritten OS code for audio playback and battery power supply for past several years, and I compare it to other high end turn tables, not other proper servers.

In "proper servers" the upgraded components make a significant difference. In any music server clean power and jitter matter most. Also, WRT the Mac Mini being "leagues ahead", this is patently false. Apple uses the same ODMs as HP, Dell, etc. and the design is not focused on outputting exemplary quality sound, it's based on functionality that meets their specs for the cheapest price. And while your Mac Mini uses a battery PSU it won't change the fact that Apple and other OEMs' motherboards include many noisy DC ->DC converters negating much of the benefit of an external PSU. And btw, I'm an industry insider too. ;-)
 

Legolas

VIP/Donor
Dec 27, 2015
1,042
387
455
France
In "proper servers" the upgraded components make a significant difference. In any music server clean power and jitter matter most. Also, WRT the Mac Mini being "leagues ahead", this is patently false. Apple uses the same ODMs as HP, Dell, etc. and the design is not focused on outputting exemplary quality sound, it's based on functionality that meets their specs for the cheapest price. And while your Mac Mini uses a battery PSU it won't change the fact that Apple and other OEMs' motherboards include many noisy DC ->DC converters negating much of the benefit of an external PSU. And btw, I'm an industry insider too. ;-)

I agree. BUT the Mac mini can be set up to compete very cheaply. It has no noisy monitor in the case, can be modded to run off a 12v LPS supply (ditch the horrid SMPS as in all PCs), and stripped back to almost base system and data output. I have pitched my Mac mini v 2 Aurender, and they were not better, just sounded slightly different. Remember most music servers have (should have) a decent LPS supply BUT it is stuffed in the same chassis, so noise again.

IMO I would not buy a music server if it forced me to use only their player. For example, right now Room sounds better to me than all the others I have tried, but that may not be always the case.

Also I don't upsample, as run an NOS DAC. The upsampling bit and the filtering applied in software if required by the DAC and client, can then be a big deal, the need for more power and control. PCM > DSD for example.

So, in summary, if you have a clue about computers, I would say build your own solution. Cheaper, easier to update and mod, use the player of your choice etc. Complete nonsense spending 15K on an SGM, to do what? Output USB, crazy.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Cleaning? Where did that come from?
Anyway, the major role is the organization and access of the library.

A fast way of saying eliminating from the physical representation of the digital data any nasty electrical signal that can show in the output of the server and affect the performance (subjective sound quality of the DAC) . Surely if you believe that all bit exact servers sound the same my words have no meaning at all.

And we are in WBF most of the time for the minors, not the majors. :)
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
A fast way of saying eliminating from the physical representation of the digital data any nasty electrical signal that can show in the output of the server and affect the performance (subjective sound quality of the DAC) . Surely if you believe that all bit exact servers sound the same my words have no meaning at all.
Well, that's an interesting, if strange, use of the word. Can you define what you mean by "bit exact servers?" What are they physically and what functions do they perform?
And we are in WBF most of the time for the minors, not the majors. :)
Ain't that the truth. Many people do seem to have their binoculars on backwards these days.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Well, that's an interesting, if strange, use of the word. Can you define what you mean by "bit exact servers?" What are they physically and what functions do they perform?

Some servers perform oversampling , filtering or manipulations on the data stream - I am excluding them from my comments.

Can I re-ask what is your view on sever subjective sound quality?
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Thanks for saying it so clearly. It fits my definition of server voodoo. :)

That's not voodoo. It's engineering. Of a different kind, software engineering.

I hope so. But I find frustrating that after so many years of computer audio we find we are just in the beginning of such a simple task - deliver a proper bit stream to a DAC. I have had great and enjoyable sound from CD players since I owned a Mark Levinson ML31 transport.

So many years? It's been what, 10 years? Do you really think CD players progressed this much from 1982-1992?
When CDs came out, that ALSO required audio companies to acquire new skill sets. And it took them a while to learn what was right, and what was less so. Even then, mistakes where made along the way.
As I said, we are only just beginning to understand the effects of software on audio playback. It'll be a while, but it'll be very rewarding.

BTW, did you compare the sound quality of the current MSB transport playing CDs with the equivalent playback of a redbook file using a server? I could not not find any report of such comparison in the net.

In order to beat the new Transport, with the new ProISL interface, you need an exceptional server, like a Innuos Statement, or the Memory Player. A Mac Mini won't do it.
 

Kal Rubinson

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2010
2,360
697
1,700
NYC
www.stereophile.com
Some servers perform oversampling , filtering or manipulations on the data stream - I am excluding them from my comments.

Can I re-ask what is your view on sever subjective sound quality?
That is why I asked you to define what you mean. Servers that can "perform oversampling , filtering or manipulations on the data stream" can also defeat those functions, so their presence is irrelevant. What specific functions do you include under the rubric of server?
 

sbo6

VIP/Donor
May 18, 2014
1,661
594
480
Round Rock, TX
I agree. BUT the Mac mini can be set up to compete very cheaply. It has no noisy monitor in the case, can be modded to run off a 12v LPS supply (ditch the horrid SMPS as in all PCs), and stripped back to almost base system and data output. I have pitched my Mac mini v 2 Aurender, and they were not better, just sounded slightly different. Remember most music servers have (should have) a decent LPS supply BUT it is stuffed in the same chassis, so noise again.

IMO I would not buy a music server if it forced me to use only their player. For example, right now Room sounds better to me than all the others I have tried, but that may not be always the case.

Also I don't upsample, as run an NOS DAC. The upsampling bit and the filtering applied in software if required by the DAC and client, can then be a big deal, the need for more power and control. PCM > DSD for example.

So, in summary, if you have a clue about computers, I would say build your own solution. Cheaper, easier to update and mod, use the player of your choice etc. Complete nonsense spending 15K on an SGM, to do what? Output USB, crazy.

I'm not sure where your head is at, you're saying you agree but the Mac mini can be set up to compete very cheaply? It can't. You can't modify the MB LO and rework it to avoid noisy on - board DC -> DC converters, doesn't matter if it's an Apple, HP or whomever, they use the same crap boards. Running on a 12V LPSU confirms this since motherboards (even Apple) have multiple rails requiring 12V, 5V, etc. so DC -> DC conversion is occurring = noise. On top of that, I believe the Mac Mini = active cooling with a fan. Want better sound? Go passive, the motor is an audio quality killer.

Also, no PCs have built - in monitors and any DIY Music server can be configured with an outboard PSU. All OEMs for the most part are on equal footing. I will say that server motherboards do have higher specs and better quality (tighter tolerances, longer lasting) than typical motherboards so there's that.

In terms of SGM - Have you heard it? If not, you're commenting with no evidence to substantiate your claim.
 

dr k

VIP/Donor
Aug 4, 2016
218
102
260
California
In "proper servers" the upgraded components make a significant difference. In any music server clean power and jitter matter most. Also, WRT the Mac Mini being "leagues ahead", this is patently false. Apple uses the same ODMs as HP, Dell, etc. and the design is not focused on outputting exemplary quality sound, it's based on functionality that meets their specs for the cheapest price. And while your Mac Mini uses a battery PSU it won't change the fact that Apple and other OEMs' motherboards include many noisy DC ->DC converters negating much of the benefit of an external PSU. And btw, I'm an industry insider too. ;-)

To be clear, the Mac Mini board I’m referring to is the quad core design that was discontinued around 2014 or 2025, I think. Although the Mac Mini May share many of the same components, its circuit board is designed to a different level due to is low power requirements, fanless design, and low noise, etc. All these improves electrical noise and (RF, EMI, etc), and doesn’t require some of the more heroic measures seen in these proper server. Jitter, which is important, is not the end all to good sound. This according to an electrical engineer professor at a major university who has been designing computer circuit boards for decades, not just an industry insider. Audiophiles tend to look down on the Mini because it’s affordable compared to these proper servers. Sorry, my own experience with the dB Audio Labs Mini with its rewritten OS (which btw significantly improves sound quality) and info I gathered on the Mini from true experts in the field run contrary to your claims. But I do agree other Mac Mini servers aren’t that special because most only try to improve the hardware side and not the actual OS.

Btw, if you’re an industry insider, it should be made clear under your ID to avoid any conflict of interest. What company are you affiliated with?
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing