Thks for the detailed reply, assume the ROCK O/S is different from what’s on the ST, any chance Andrew could install it ?
Roon would not support it if it did, apparently it’s no on Roon’s approved-and-supported NUCs list. I myself have ROCK running (very well) on a NUC that’s not on that list. And someday, with some new version, it may break. And I’ll be on my own. Same with ROCK on a ST.
Now to move to what I surmise from what I’ve read (and could be totally wrong), the big advantages to running RoonOS (Rock’s custom OS) is in the non-sonic needs of RoonServer. That implies that a decent OS for sound running RoonServer should have no significant SQ advantages over ROCK. And your ST should have a great OS for sound. And very recently someone on the Roon forum asked the same question, and Danny Dulai - Roon’s COO (and as far as I can tell, the main person behind ROCK) - said “I’m not sure why you would want to.”
To me that implies that he sees no SQ advantage. And to my experience, Danny’s a straight shooter. If there was a sonic benefit, IMO he’d have said so.
“That implies that a decent OS for sound running RoonServer should have no significant SQ advantages over ROCK”
So if you’re already running a minimal OS, ROCK may not be any better, correct? That ends up being significantly different than the greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread you’ve been writing about. If you’re just putting together a Roon system, or dislike your current hardware/software - it’s perhaps the way to go.
Badbeef - are you being confrontational? It sure seems like it. Or is that just an honest question? I don’t think I ever said it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, implying everyone is better off with it. But I’m going to assume this is an honest question and provide a well considered reply…
I brought ROCK up in this thread in a specific Use Case context. That Use Case was as an alternative for someone wanting to run RoonServer on their NAS. Anyone wanting to run RoonServer on a NAS would appear to have already decided to not run some iteration of Roon in the MANY other places it can be run. For those people - if they can afford a NUC - ROCK is GREAT. But for everyone else, it’s a judgment call.
Whether it’s “better” than what you have will depend on many factors. But generally those factors will not be sonic (as I understand it) UNLESS you are using DSP, then the platform can make a very large difference. And for the record, none of this conversation has even remotely moved into the power supply space, which matters for USB connections, and certainly much less so (if at all) for music moved over Ethernet.
One thing the forthcoming Nucleus products provide (assuming the proper version is purchased based on your library size and DSP usage) is the knowledge that your Roon core is running on as good a platform as it might need. And you could easily duplicate that by buying the same NUC, and loading ROCK on it. No difference other than the case. But that does not mean that you might not have something even better. Not sonically better (yet maybe just as good), but maybe fast library browsing on the Nucleus might be wicked fast library browsing on your platform, for instance. Roon is CPU hungry, and you could be running RoonSever on some PassMark beast on a lean OS (developed with audio in mind), with nothing else running, connecting to your endpoints over Ethernet. Then you are in Roon Nirvana.
But if that’s not you, and you were thinking hard about putting RoonServer on a NAS (for whatever reason), ROCK could be just the ticket.
It’s both - a question for clarification along with ribbing : )
It just seemed like a ways from “you know it will be…fast, sound good, uber stable” etc. to “I’m not sure why you would want to”.
It helps to have the context in which the info is offered. As a Roon user and audiophile, I was reading it as “this will be the best, most stable and best sounding way to run Roon” (which it may in fact be), making me think I might need to rethink my minimal OS Mini rig. Part of what seemed irksome about the earlier posts was the assumption that when this came out, it would BE all these things…just… because. There are folks who are fans of various companies that get excited in advance of products and say things like “you KNOW it will be x,y,z and AWESOME (essentially) because it’s from my favorite company” even though no one has any actual experience with the thing in question. If I had known you actually had heard/used it, or were reporting inside information, I would have thought it somewhat less hype-y, or understood why you were hyping it.
It’s a bit like if I were involved with the development of the PS Audio server, and I went on another manufacturer’s site and made predicitve claims about it. Not a perfect analogy, but you get what I mean.
An objective summary appears to be that ROCK is an option for those who want an easy to set-up Roon device which is either turn-key, or close thereto, and supported (at least to a degree) by Roon.
ROCK simply means you can buy a Roon recommended NUC, install Roon’s proprietary version of Linux (RoonOS) and their RoonServer, and you have what Roon calls a ROCK. In the alternative, you can buy a fully turn-key already setup NUC.
It does not sound any better, but it will be easier to setup and should be very stable as it is designed as a single-purpose Roon device.
Whether or not this is drool-worthy depends on your interest in Roon, comfort with computers, and relationship with Roon.
For some, this may be an exciting development. For others, it is snooze-worthy.
I’m running Roon on a dedicated mac mini and DSD/Bridge II and have been interested in using NAS. From reading the threads here it looks like Roon needs a high end NAS and even then may be a bit of a bumpy road. If Rock on its dedicated platform means an easier implementation, ongoing use and stability of NAS with Roon then it would be very welcome to me. Is this what can be expected with Rock on it’s platform?
scolley said
[if] you were thinking hard about putting RoonServer on a NAS (for whatever reason), ROCK could be just the ticket.
I think that's kind of an apples-to-oranges thing. I'm one of those who has thought about RoonServer on a NAS. What appeals to me, and I think to some others, is the idea of not having to get an additional box. Aside from the cost of the NUC, my audio rock is already overstuffed, there are way too many little power supplies around, etc. It just seems like an elegant solution to put RoonServer on the NAS if you've got one anyway. And conceptually it is a good way to go, but there are lots of things to watch out for (adequate CPU power on the NAS and lack of official support chief among them).
Elk said
ROCK simply means you can buy a Roon recommended NUC, install Roon’s proprietary version of Linux (RoonOS) and their RoonServer, and you have what Roon calls a ROCK.
IIUC correctly, ROCK technically refers only to the software. I can understand why people might use the term to refer to a NUC with ROCK installed, though.
magister said
IIUC correctly, ROCK technically refers only to the software. I can understand why people might use the term to refer to a NUC with ROCK installed, though.
This may well be correct. Given however that Roon will support ROCK only when the software is installed on one of Roon’s "approved-and-supported NUCs list," I think of it as as an entire package.
It’s a bit like if I were involved with the development of the PS Audio server, and I went on another manufacturer’s site and made predicitve claims about it. Not a perfect analogy, but you get what I mean.
I see what you mean. But it's inaccurate, for as I stated earlier, with the exception of knowing that it works, nothing I posted was not publicly available on the Roon forum. And as for the working assurance, when has Roon released something that didn't work? Initial bugs, sure. But it's pretty stable stuff. So IMO anyone could assume that it's going to work. So I guess there's the difference - the average Joe had good reason to assume it would work. I knew it would.
Likewise, they also have a track record of delivering things they say they are going to deliver. So knowing it was indeed coming out was not inside info either, particularly since it was much discussed as being released soon (by Roon employees) on the forum. As to the exact release date, I was just as much in the dark as everyone else.
stax said
If Rock on its dedicated platform means an easier implementation, ongoing use and stability of NAS with Roon then it would be very welcome to me. Is this what can be expected with Rock on it’s platform?
Yes. That is what you should expect, with the possible exception of the "easier implementation" part. Setting it up the first time can require a bit of computer technical knowledge. They are working on making the instructions to set it up as simple to follow as possible now. For some, it's up in minutes. For others it can be a bit more challenging. For instance, one requirement is that your NUCs BIOS be up-to-date. Well, that's an easy process for some, challenging for others. And they can only give loose guidance on how to do that, because it is not the same for every device.
Though there is a lot of help going out to people in the forum where they are having challenges with things like that. So - personally - if that were an issue, I’d not let that scare me off, if it’s something you want.
In a NAS environment, am I right to think that since the Roon core will be running on the Rock/dedicated platform instead of running on the NAS that the required NAS configuration with a Rock implementation will not need to be as powerful as it needed to be without the Rock/platform?
Less load on your NAS is less load. And RoonServer is a pretty decent load. But would not presume to know how beefy a CPU/memory you’d need on your NAS normally, but it’s less than the requirement to adequately run all the NAS software and RoonServer, that’s certain.
Right. That makes sense. Roon has a recommended NAS configuration that was pretty powerful though that was pre-Rock/dedicated platform which would now seem to offload a lot of work from the NAS itself.
In a NAS environment, am I right to think that since the Roon core will be running on the Rock/dedicated platform instead of running on the NAS that the required NAS configuration with a Rock implementation will not need to be as powerful as it needed to be without the Rock/platform?
If so, then I’m interested.
I have my Roon music library on an old Netgear NAS using an ARM chip and it runs fine. I tried running Roon Server on a much newer QNAP NAS with an onboard SSD just for Roon and while it worked, the Celeron chip and memory was not ideal and poor performance limited my ability to do things like access Tidal from Roon. So I went to the SonicTransport i5, which is basically a predecessor to ROCK Nucleus, and my old Netgear works fine with a 2TB music library that is approaching 20K tracks.
…conceptually it is a good way to go, but there are lots of things to watch out for (adequate CPU power on the NAS and lack of official support chief among them).
Total agreement there. There's putting the two together means no additional power supplies, no extra boxes, and the NAS is (likely) always on anyway.
But I’ll add one more concern, that - I’m sure - does not apply to everyone equally, and that’s minimizing anything that could destabilize my NAS. With two home office professionals in my house, both my network and my NAS are professionally mission critical. Sure, I’ve got all kinds of things in place to make sure I can fully recover from most possible problems. But between any event that destabilizes my NAS, and full recovery, I’ve probably got a professional crisis on my hands. So anything that might destabilize my NAS is a no-no for me. Heck, I don’t even run the vast majority of the stuff QNAP supplies with my NAS. Not worth the risk for me.
Clearly that is not the case universally. But for some, it can be a major a factor.
In that situation I wouldn’t run RoonServer on my NAS either. I don’t depend on it to that extent, though, so I have more options (depending on what upgraded NAS I end up buying).
I don’t think an official date has been announced, but one review stated availability in August.
I’d be a little surprised if there is any date announced until release, or shortly before. When Roon Labs first released Roon, they were pretty open about software enhancements on the drawing board, and target release dates. But they got burned by some pretty adverse user reactions when they missed one or two of their (already very aggressive) target dates. Now they avoid talking about dates.
That said, I’d be surprised if they’d tell a reviewer August if they did not truly anticipate them being ready then - if not before - for the very same reason. But that’s just conjecture on my part.
I’ve been away from the forums for a while, so I’m coming to this way late (and skimmed past the jostling above). So this is just my 2 cents on Roon.
I signed up to Roon last September and put it on my 3+ year old Synology 8 bay NAS. I upgraded the NAS memory to 4GB and added an SSD as recommended. It worked, but was sluggish; I ran this way for months. Then when Roon Labs added Upsampling, I thought I’d give that a try and it was just flat out too much for the poor tired old nas.
So, being tired of waiting for ROCK, I built a Windows 10 PC out of a Lenovo Tiny Form Factor Intel i5 PC, 256GB SSD and 8GB of fast RAM. Roon runs great, recognises the Bridge II in my DS DAC, and I can run upconversion up to the highest that the Bridge II can take. So far so good!
Then I see ROCK is released, and the Lenovo TFF isn’t supported, but I thought I’d try it anyways. Made my flash disk, adjusted the BIOS, and Boom, I had the ROCK OS loaded and running in about 15 minutes!! I’m hoping I can get up to DSD4X upsampling, but I don’t currently have a DAC that support that - I’m considering the TEAC NT-503 for my second system to play with that. Otherwise, locally, Roon ROCK is fast and smooth and sounds great with my Directstream!
I don’t like how much Roon costs, but I have to say it’s really good software overall. The only issues I have generally, is how inefficient it seems to be that people are saying they need i7 processors and dedicated OS to run it. I also see this in that the latest versions of Roon run great on the Core, but using my phone or another PC to control the core is sluggish (not as painfully as the old NAS was 100% of the time though). And this is a Gigabit copper network with all enterprise gear that I can quickly transfer hundreds of gigs across…the weak link seems to be Roon’s efficiency. Overall I’m still pretty happy with it.