Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Roon 1.1 Released

70.179.39.110
Posted on August 27, 2015 at 05:24:32
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 The latest and perhaps most significant update to Roon has been released. The new version fixed a bunch of issues and allows greater user flexibility in displaying their library and data.

So far, all seems to work well. Roon likes horsepower. I noticed a 19% CPU utilization in Windows 10 with a 4th generation 3.6 GHz Quad Core i7 playing a DSD64 file.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Holy cow!, posted on August 27, 2015 at 11:14:58
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I noticed a 19% CPU utilization in Windows 10 with a 4th generation 3.6 GHz Quad Core i7 playing a DSD64 file

Utilization playing two 24/96 FLAC streams using LMS on my first gen 2.8 gHz i7 server is under 1%!

 

Mercman is a Fu____ Jerk!, posted on August 27, 2015 at 13:25:47
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I discovered that the fast file analysis was running. Roon 1.1 uses very little CPU. Around 2-3% for a 192/24 file. Our ole friend Carcass would say it more elegantly.

 

Simply "mistaken" is good enough!, posted on August 27, 2015 at 14:47:51
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 That 19% figure just seeming surprisingly needy. :)

 

RE: Simply "mistaken" is good enough!, posted on August 27, 2015 at 15:12:41
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 Tell me about it! I thought it was done doing its analysis.

 

RE: Roon 1.1 Released, posted on August 27, 2015 at 18:21:20
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Steve, just my opinion, but I think Roon has a big uphill battle.

NO knock on the concept, and the quality. The guys behind it are the real deal.

But I think they stepped in it with the pricing and the lack of compatibility with anything beyond a computer...so far.

I would be interested in their server product and the iOS control point. But if the server hogs tons of resources it will be DOA. MiniMserver is literally a blip.

Are you optimistic?

 

RE: Mercman is a Fu____ Jerk!, posted on August 27, 2015 at 21:31:55
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 I think you mean Cool Jerk!






 

RE: Roon 1.1 Released, posted on August 27, 2015 at 23:13:29
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 I don't think that resources will be an issue, but the acceptance by hardware manufacturers will tell us if there is a future for this.

The Roon guys are relatively young and smart, so I think they have a good chance at succeeding. But the product will probably be quite different in 5 years than it is today-if they last.

 

RE: Roon 1.1 Released - Utilization, posted on August 28, 2015 at 05:38:01
DTB300
Audiophile

Posts: 499
Location: Maryland
Joined: March 28, 2004
 In my Roon setup - Headless RoonServer (Roon Core) and Roon Remote both on Win2012r2, music on NAS...... Servers i5 4th Gen, 8gb Mem

utilization for files from 14.4 up to DSD-128 and the highest utilization I see is 2.1% - 2.5%, but that is only a spurt as it usually runs around 1% or less.

 

RE: Holy cow!, posted on August 28, 2015 at 09:15:12
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46302
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 Apples and Oranges. Roon does LOTS more than LMS. And another inmate reported significantly lower utilization than Mercman. If the product does more I would expect it to use more (system resources). I think that's a perfectly reasonable expectation.


 

As for me..., posted on August 28, 2015 at 10:30:55
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 If the product does more I would expect it to use more (system resources). I think that's a perfectly reasonable expectation.

any digital player that truly required a fifth the processing power of a Cray 2 supercomputer for simple playback is too much!

You'll note that the original 19% figure apparently included some background processing load and is much lower in operation.

 

RE: Roon 1.1 Released, posted on August 28, 2015 at 11:51:35
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 5 years!! You are really optimistic!

Well as far as manufacturers, they have integrated tidal, spotify, pandora and other premium services,so no reason not to jump on board Roon.

I just think nobody is going to pay.

 

RE: As for me..., posted on August 28, 2015 at 15:53:45
Mercman
Audiophile

Posts: 6581
Location: So. CA
Joined: October 20, 2002
 The background analysis can be turned off. Also, once all of the tracks are analyzed, it doesn't run. So real CPU was between 1 and 3 %.

 

RE: Roon 1.1 Released, posted on August 29, 2015 at 05:44:38
PAR
 Yes, I think I agree with your conclusion. Roon may justifiably be considered the bees knees but for me ( and I suspect many potential customers) it just offers more stuff than I would ever need. All those artist biographies etc. That stuff has no real value for me especially as I have other resources to provide it. Thus I have to consider the pricing to be too high. Still I may be wrong given hands on experience.

I note that they show dCS as one of their technology supporters. The new dCS Rossini DAC is also a streamer with a control app running on an i-pad. I wonder if that might be related to Roon? I guess I'll find out over the next weeks as the DAC becomes available.

 

RE: Roon 1.1 Released, posted on August 29, 2015 at 06:58:55
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Yes, all the extra information they want to provide is superfluous. Especially for someone like me who is a music geek.

I detect more than a bit of arrogance in the way the product was rolled out. As I said before, no knock on the concept, and I am sure it is a good product, but the way the trial period works and the pricing makes it DOA.

I wish them the best but to survive they are going have to torch their current business plan or it is adios.

 

Out of touch Cray reference., posted on August 29, 2015 at 15:31:15
MikeCh
Audiophile

Posts: 1113
Joined: November 16, 2002
 I doubt the software is written to be used on several thousand cores, so your reference to Cray is an ignorant one. Your 1/5 number also seems to have also been pulled out of your a$$.

(Supercomputers rely on parallelism to achieve their processing power and software needs to be written to utilize it. Google MPI or OpemMP is you're so inclined. Desktop applications have no need for any of this.).

 

Out of touch response, posted on August 29, 2015 at 16:25:15
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37666
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I doubt the software is written to be used on several thousand cores, so your reference to Cray is an ignorant one.

Clearly you have no idea what a Cray 2 was. Like the Intel i7, it had four cores.

Cray 2 Supercomputer

Your 1/5 number also seems to have also been pulled out of your a$$.

At the expense of further confusing the issue with facts, an i7-860 delivers comparable whetstone and dhrystone benchmark performance to the Cray 2.

 

Page processed in 0.026 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]