If I just load and buffer single track in the queue there is no difference between this and 100% of a single track when there is only 1 track in the queue. Using StylusEP as "HQPlayer" is imho definitely worth a try. The plan is to replace it by a NUC7I7DNKE and to buy a better ps. I have the feeling there is a 'uptick' in sq compared to Roon Bridge but I only use a cheapo NUC7CJYH with original ps as endpoint. I have three DSD256 albums and some more in DSD128. Yes, I am using it for about two weeks now. fast enough without loss of information or timing issue. But perhaps others have tired.Īnother thing, is it possible for you to load the file to Ecache directly from Roon? I am not sure if ECache works with Roon I have files as large as 2GB, so I doubt it can be moved around and travel via ethernet etc. The timing and large memory of the files that need to be processed means that staying in a local single box in single SW may work best but I have no experience other than using Stylus player itself. I could be wrong but given the larger files of DSD128, & 256, I think it is best to use Stylus player itself without Roon or any other SW involved. I have a lot of DSD128 and DSD256 albums that I listen to a lot - the StylusEP with Squeezebox emulation doesn't work for me as that's only limited to DSD64.
Mpd minimserver license#
I'm running Audiolinux now and would pay for a license if this StylusEP/HQplayer endpoint feature works (again without HQPlayer, just with Roon). I basically cannot give up Roon's UI mostly so that the wife can stick with what she's used to, but would love to get some of Euphony's sonic advantages. Has anyone tried using the new StylusEP as a HQplayer "endpoint" for Roon Core yet? Again, no HQPlayer really involved, just a way to preserve Roon's library management and UI while getting the sonic advantage of Stylus. Does buffer queue make the system more stable? Less activity from stylus? I am not sure why it would improve despite using more RAM and also it should only affect the beginning or end of track but the sonic change appears to be constant. I think it is subtle and maybe only obvious with poorer recordings. It brings the sound stage slightly forward, more focus and the distortion or fuzziness is less, a bit smoother. It seems there maybe be some improvements in entire track after comparing different albums. I am still unable to smoothly skip to a different track and sometimes it works but other times not. So it's always one step ahead and that seems to work well - so far I've never missed the first split-second of the next track. Now it looks as if the next rack is always pre-loaded and it's the track-after-next that is buffered when the next track starts. Previously, the next track only loaded at the point I skipped to it, and very occasionally I would not hear the first split-second of that track. There appears to have been an improvement to the single track buffering as well: For those that do hear a difference, please elaborate what that is and does it only apply to the first few seconds of each track?
I also don't hear much sonic advantages in queue buffering vs single track buffering. But I do have the much smaller redbook FLAC files. When in queue buffer mode, I have no issues with clicking on a different track - it plays immediately. I then restart app and of course the queue is unbuffered. I can only buffer limited tracks as I play DSD a lot and each album is like 9-11 GB! Also realize I cannot click to a different track while in Buffer queue, like it would play but no sound is coming out. I am not sure if there is much sonic difference. just deleted the entire queue and now run only single album as I am testing the buffer queue mode. II don't remember that the current track is now always in display, as like you I can have > 50 tracks on queue.