[Progisus]

There is no physical connection between a roon remote and a roon server. It's getting silly now.

I’ve got 2 remotes open and there is no difference in the sound. Argh!

 

[AndrewOld]

There is no physical connection between a roon remote and a roon server. It's getting silly now.

I worry that if I open the window it will blow the wireless waves across the room and cause Rf interference when they hit the wall, not to mention the increased cpu workload. Also, I have discovered that using short file names for my music files sounds much better. Obviously you need a revealing system to hear this.

 

[ZappaMan]

Honestly, the logic is thus, when the remote is open, the server needs to tell it at least every second, what position in the track is current etc. so thats additional processes on the server to do that communication.

I’m not saying I’ve observed this but the high rollers do say it.

 

[AndrewOld]

Honestly, the logic is thus, when the remote is open, the server needs to tell it at least every second, what position in the track is current etc. so thats additional processes on the server to do that communication.

I’m not saying I’ve observed this but the high rollers do say it.

You mean there is an audible degradation of the sound every second? Lasting how long?

 

[miketlse]

I worry that if I open the window it will blow the wireless waves across the room and cause Rf interference when they hit the wall, not to mention the increased cpu workload. Also, I have discovered that using short file names for my music files sounds much better. Obviously you need a revealing system to hear this.

I sense your tongue is firmly in your cheek.

You really should try and create a spoof audiophile thread, and get the sound scientists, and audiophiles arguing about topics. However we do already have the Sound Science thread for that.

'if I open the window it will blow the wireless waves across the room' - I think you would need to warp spacetime to deflect the radio waves enough, and without a nearby black hole to do the job, the likelihood must be vanishingly small, but I am sure that some audiophiles will claim that they could detect a change.
If you open the window, and let cooler air into the room, then that changes the air density, and how the sound travels through the air. It wouldn't surprise me if some audiophiles who use speakers, will claim that there is a 'night and day' difference in what they hear, depending on whether a window is open.

'Obviously you need a revealing system to hear this' LOL
Sadly this is the 'fall back position' for some audiophiles, when their opinions are challenged.

 

[ZappaMan]

You mean there is an audible degradation of the sound every second? Lasting how long?

Andrew, what I mean is, the server is operating an additional sub process to manage the ongoing negotiation with the remote control around the current state of the playback.
that sub process can be seen to be detrimental to the main process of processing the audio.
You can argue about this or that, but it’s conceivable that this could result in a change to the sound quality, unless of course you only value your own ideas and everyone else’s deserve to be shat on.

 

[miketlse]

Andrew, what I mean is, the server is operating an additional sub process to manage the ongoing negotiation with the remote control around the current state of the playback.
that sub process can be seen to be detrimental to the main process of processing the audio.
You can argue about this or that, but it’s conceivable that this could result in a change to the sound quality, unless of course you only value your own ideas and everyone else’s deserve to be shat on.

Basically you are claiming that a server CPU, running at 3,000,000,000 clock cycles a second, is greatly detrimentally affected by the few hundred cycles needed to manage the ROON synchronisation.
High rollers being able to conceive an idea, is not the same as them producing verifiable measurements that prove the cause & effect behind the claim.

 

[ZappaMan]

Basically you are claiming that a server CPU, running at 3,000,000,000 clock cycles a second, is greatly detrimentally affected by the few hundred cycles needed to manage the ROON synchronisation.
High rollers being able to conceive an idea, is not the same as them producing verifiable measurements that prove the cause & effect behind the claim.

Can you provide any reference for these numbers? You’re both pulling a large number and a small number out of your hole.
Computers are powerful, and can do many things, but if the software isn’t properly orchestrating the different threads, then it could have an impact.

 

[miketlse]

Can you provide any reference for these numbers? You’re both pulling a large number and a small number out of your hole.
Computers are powerful, and can do many things, but if the software isn’t properly orchestrating the different threads, then it could have an impact.

PC CPUs reached a clock speed of 4GHz over 20 years ago.
I used 3GHz because it is a more conservative number.

You made the claim that the sub-process can change the sound quality.
It is your responsibility to prove your claim, not mine to prove why the claim seems far-fetched or absurd.

 

[Progisus]

I was a bit bored this afternoon. hehe I just changed my phones from utopia to 800s for the afternoon. I can guarantee there was a sound difference. But a better one?

 

[ZappaMan]

PC CPUs reached a clock speed of 4GHz over 20 years ago.
I used 3GHz because it is a more conservative number.

You made the claim that the sub-process can change the sound quality.
It is your responsibility to prove your claim, not mine to prove why the claim seems far-fetched or absurd.

No I said, others report it makes a difference to them and explained the reason why. YOU then stated the cycles that the server would use to communicate to the remote - IN AN OVERLY SIMPLISTIC PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR HOLE WAY.
I see your not going to produce those numbers, and as we are in the Dave thread, I insist you delete your misleading post, mentioned above.
Referencing Carl Sagan does nothing to help your sorry ass argument.

 

[miketlse]

No I said, others report it makes a difference to them and explained the reason why. YOU then stated the cycles that the server would use to communicate to the remote - IN AN OVERLY SIMPLISTIC PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR HOLE WAY.
I see your not going to produce those numbers, and as we are in the Dave thread, I insist you delete your misleading post, mentioned above.
Referencing Carl Sagan does nothing to help your sorry ass argument.

If the CPU is running at 3GHz, and just 1% of those cycles were needed to maintain ROON synchronisation, that would be 30,000,000 clock cycles.
I struggle to understand how you would need even 1,000,000 clock cycles, to just send a simple command from Roon to the remote, and then receive the response.
Even 1,000,000 clock cycles would represent just 1/30 of one percent of the CPU workload.

Consequently it is an extraordinary claim that this small workload affects the sound quality.
I believe that is justified for me to ask for extraordinary evidence.

My post is not misleading - it is challenging the extraordinary claim that has been posted.

 

[ZappaMan]

If the CPU is running at 3GHz, and just 1% of those cycles were needed to maintain ROON synchronisation, that would be 30,000,000 clock cycles.
I struggle to understand how you would need even 1,000,000 clock cycles, to just send a simple command from Roon to the remote, and then receive the response.
Even 1,000,000 clock cycles would represent just 1/30 of one percent of the CPU workload.

Consequently it is an extraordinary claim that this small workload affects the sound quality.
I believe that is justified for me to ask for extraordinary evidence.

My post is not misleading - it is challenging the extraordinary claim that has been posted.

My names is mike, and I’ve been reduced to making straw man arguments around cpu cycles.
If only I had of opened my mind to others experiences instead of indulging myself in my narcissistic belief, that only my experiences are valid.

 

[Lgn3]

I heard the high rollers say, keeping any roon remote control open during playback has negative impact, as the server/remote control become tightly bound to exchange metrics about current tract/position/etc and this has a material impact on the server/end point.

Two ways to look at this I suppose. You have a hypothesis, test it through a rigorous double blind trial, submit the results to be peer reviewed or then again just take the word of a high roller and drink some disinfectant.

 

[AndrewOld]

Andrew, what I mean is, the server is operating an additional sub process to manage the ongoing negotiation with the remote control around the current state of the playback.
that sub process can be seen to be detrimental to the main process of processing the audio.
You can argue about this or that, but it’s conceivable that this could result in a change to the sound quality, unless of course you only value your own ideas and everyone else’s deserve to be shat on.

Firstly I accept that such a thing is conceivable because you, at least, have conceived it. But I don’t accept that it is likely. It is not **** on your point of view to say that. The elapsed time on Roon Remote updates every second. If what you say is true, and updating the elapsed time on the control point degrades the sound, then you should hear that degradation every second, for a very brief instant of time. Do you? What does it sound like? If the server is connected to the endpoint wirelessly, how does this claimed degradation reach the endpoint when all the server is doing is sending packets of information? These are all reasonable questions. If I were to make a list of all the things that “might” affect my music, your proposition would be very close to the bottom.