A very clever and customer-centric solution which allows Roon subscribers to continue to use their uncertified Roon Ready devices without penalty after September 21st, while still forcing the manufacturers to complete the certification process.
Well done!
I tend to agree, subject to that it places a burden on the subscriber to (i) know of this change and (ii) actively request. The 1 to 2 week period for this to happen may be narrow. I don’t have skin in the game here and may not fully understand all the considerations, but Roon opted to not grant an automatic extension for those pre-existing impacted devices.
I don’t see that as a workable solution, they are still going to end up denying their own customers use of devices that they paid for in a dispute between Roon and companies that licensed their software. They are punishing people that did nothing wrong in order to, maybe, punish those that did.
You don’t alienate your customers, not if you want to prosper in business.
Full Disclosure : I have no skin in this game, don’t use Roon or any compatible devices. I had considered Roon several times, but no longer.
Mark Gosdin
I agree that bystander customers here seem to be caught between Roon licensor/franchisor and device manufacturer licensees/franchisees.
I believe there would be less alienation if there was an automatic extension without requiring customers to actively request by a very abbreviated deadline.
I think Roon has put forward a pretty good solution for its customers with the latest update on this whole debacle. If you need a temporary exception, you can apply for their dev mode version and your stuff will still work.
That puts the customer’s eyes on the device makers to see when they will finally come into compliance. Seems fair to both ends.
If this results in Sep 21 not being a hard deadline to request, then that’s favorable for the customer.
Customers assume the risk of buying an uncertified device, unless the purchase was made based on a misrepresentation of the manufacturer.
This is an unfortunate situation where the device manufacturers seem to be culpable.
I can’t really agree with this. Why is it Roon’s fault that the company selling the equipment didn’t fulfill the rules laid out to use their system?
I think that Roon is being pretty fair to their customers by finding a solution for them.
I understand that it is in Roon’s interest to keep their customers that pay for a monthly service (those that paid a lifetime subscription have already given up their cash) but how many companies do you know of that will work in the interests of a final user that purchased from a middle man that didn’t fulfill the requirements?
As an example, many manufacturers won’t honor warranties on products that weren’t purchased from an authorised dealer (because the dealer didn’t follow the rules to become authorised).
I think this situation is very similar and should be the manufacturer’s that didn’t follow the rules and mislead their clients that should be held responsible.
I think Roon is actually being quite helpful about all this.
Just my 2 pesetas.
Placing a duty on the customer to request by the deadline doesn’t seem to be great solution to me. Why not grant an automatic extension and grandfather all preexisting devices, or provide a longer deadline? I’m uncertain of when this issue arose, but 30 or 90 days from when customers were put on notice would be more reasonable. Imposing a short deadline seems like saving face where Roon can say they offered a solution, when their solution amounts to requiring customers to go through an arguably meaningless exercise of having to press a button to request.
If Roon wants to keep customers while expelling deficient devices and manufacturers, as an alternative they could have offered a new device purchase rebate and/or annual subscription rebate - - some cost-benefit analysis of their marketing spend and new customer acquisition cost in order to lock in annual subscribers or whatever their desired customer type is.
Alienating customers and giving them a reason to terminate their subscription is a risky proposition - especially for a software platform, even if it is currently the best.
I use Roon exclusively for my FLAC music collection, the backlash on this is being misrepresented. Not all users are affected, not all device types are affected as this rule is aimed at specific network devices by specific manufacturers who skirted the Roon certification process.
As a user when you enable a device in Roon, it immediately tells you if is Roon Ready, Roon-whatever. If it is unsupported it’s states it very clearly. Now because it is unsupported does not mean that it will not work, it will most cases. This is the issue at hand, it’s not going to hurt the user experience as any software update may render unsupported devices to not work. So the timeline and fixes provided are generous given that affected users are well aware of their device not being supported prior to this deadline. Essentially the devices have enjoyed the benefits plus n’ play for a longer period of time than what is being perceived.
As a customer, it’s not affecting the experience as my streaming devices are either Raspberry Pi, iOS, or a computer. DACs are not affected unless it also contains a network component.
This addresses most of my concerns. If the purchaser of an unsupported device got what they thought they were paying for, then gravy. The culprits here are the manufacturers, not Roon. Roon has presented a resolution, which appears to be more than what certain manufacturers are doing (to date) to support their purchasers.
Precisely, they have offered a work-around to allow users to continue to use the unsupported devices until the manufacturer completes the certification process, or they find an alternative network device. Again, this is a small sub-set of devices used as an end-point.
I think of it from a security view, by allowing the unsupported devices to continue to be part of the Roon software ecosystem without certification it also potentially leaves vulnerabilities exposed to non-certified actors. I would rather keep my doors locked, then have a few open as one door unlocked is as secure as having multiple doors unlocked.
Edit: Now from a PR viewpoint, the manner in which they informed was a cluster-fuck. They only contacted customers who had connected a device not supported, to which caused a lot of panic once customers who were not affected wondered why they were not informed. They should have made a general announcement, and indicated that users affected by this would receive a separate email or communication on next steps.
True about the importance of a secure ecosystem and minimizing/eliminating unlocked doors.
What a PR cluster. Some missteps make you scratch your head. But it’s possible to right the ship, which Roon seems to be doing here.
A month or two ago I went from a single wi-fi router in the house to a mesh network with three Deco M9 Plus (TP-Link) units. This has been satisfactory for good coverage in the house, plus I’m now able to get reasonable signal in my yard and on the porches, which was a goal.
My Mac Mini is wired to a TP-Link network switch, which is, in turn wired into the primary Deco M9 mesh router. The Deco has 2 ethernet ports, one goes to the TP-link switch, and the other goes to the cable modem.
When I use my old iPad as a ROON endpoint, I’m usually in a room adjacent to the primary router. This morning, I moved to the far end of the house, where the connection would move to one of the secondary routers. I lost my ROON connection, even though signal was strong for everything.
The ROON support faq (exerpt below) seems to think mesh is OK. I have not yet tried any further testing. Anybody have any comments?
Mesh networks are a middle-ground that covers the majority of home networking scenarios while still achieving good performance. Mesh networking hardware provide WiFi access in rooms that cannot be hardwired, and some products can even expose Ethernet ports in those locations. This “WiFi backhaul” functionality makes these products fundamentally different from (and better than) WiFi Range extenders.
If a mesh network is installed with Ethernet connections between each of the nodes, the network will perform just like a traditional Router+APs setup. If WiFi links are used between the nodes, the probability of WiFi-related issues increases. Nonetheless, if you have no other option than to link your access points with WiFi, mesh is the best way to do it.
For all networks
No matter what your network setup is like, there are important factors to keep in mind to ensure you are getting the best out of your Roon experience:
Your Roon Core should always have a wired connection
If your library is stored elsewhere on the network, always ensure that both your Core and storage location are using a wired connection. Avoid WiFi between your Core and media storage at all costs.
Avoid connecting high resolution/high performance audio devices to Roon via WiFi to ensure optimal performance.
A wireless connection from your remote device to your Core is perfectly acceptable and expected in most cases.
Mesh wifi is fine, although I always see wired as being better. The Roon Core should always be hardwired. People blame Roon performance on the system, when 95% of the time it ends up being a flakey network. Most of my Roon endpoints (players) are hard wired. I’ve been using a multi pod eero system for several years. It performs well
Yes, my Roon core (The Mac Mini) is wired into the ethernet switch (gigabit), and the switch is wired to the cable modem. And the shin bone is connected to the . . . wait I’m having flashbacks.
MOST of my endpoints are also SONOS, a Port, Play 3, sub, and a couple of One’s. And a Play 1 that I need to figure out a spot for. I swapped in a One so Barbara could Airplay to it. Other endpoints are iPhone, iPad, and an Android 8 phablet.
Have been debating sending the Port to Wyred 4 Sound for their upgrade.
I have a 2011 ZP 90 base model with an Arcam Sonos (Sonlink) DAC. It lives in the master bedroom.
I had a second ZP 90 (Sonos Connect) converted to I2s over HDMI by EJ a few years ago. I have since sold it. I have W4S amp, preamp, and DAC, as well as a power supply. I can say that EJ Sarmento and his crew at W4S are great folks and do excellent work on the upgrades. Their equipment is very durable. I’ve been a customer of his for ten years.
I recently purchased an Aurender A-10 Music Server. It sounds better to me than the Roon rig running out of my Bryston BDP-2s.
The A-10 will work with Roon only as an Airplay device (cast). Good for background music.
That’s good to know. I have the W4S STI-1000 as my main (integrated) amp, driving the ancient Rectilinear III highboy’s. It’s toward the end of the first version run, and I’m very happy with it. I had to brick my Connect to upgrade to the Port. I use the Port as my streamer into my living room stereo. I also have an older TEAC DAC (UD-h01). I think I’ve been using the digital out from the Connect and Port to go into the TEAC, and then out from the TEAC’s balanced to the balance inputs of the STI-1000.
I guess that is similar to what you are doing with the Arcam product, but messier. I don’t have a music server. I’m often tempted by that W4S upgrade to the Port, but don’t know if would sound much better. Or if I’d do better to replace the TEAC.
Yes, TOPIC POLICE, I’m way off topic for ROON.
I have the STP SE -Stage 2 pre-amp . I’ve had my STP-SE since 2012 and enjoyed the neutrality it has. Last year I sent it in for a Stage 2 upgrade and a basic checkup. Just love the pre-amp and the work EJ does. FYI the STP replaced a AR 17SE.
I have the Stage 2 pre as well. Traded back my STI-500 toward it. Also have the DAC-2v2se 10th DAC with the bright red display. The DAC replaced a PSA Direct Stream Jr (that replaced an original W4S DAC-2). Both of the upgraded component were acquired within the last couple of years. I’m set there. My amp is circa 2011/2012 (MC7x250). W4S stuff is very well made. Durable. It just works.