New app

[ssfas]

Any remote app is completely useless until they fix the wifi phono-stage interference problem

What problem is that? Use phono, not wifi, but was thinking about trying wifi to see if sound quality any different from ethernet.

[ogs]

I think the current fix for WiFi noise into phono input is to disable WiFi while playing vinyl. If the amp is normally connected via WiFi you'd loose the amp on the network...

[Jean-Marie]

Any remote app is completely useless until they fix the wifi phono-stage interference problem

The remote App works perfectly with WiFi disabled on the Devialet if you are connected through Ethernet and on the same network as an other WiFi AP to which your phone or tablet can be connected. 

This is how I’m using mine. 

Jean-Marie

PS I grant you than since Roon support of Air, I’m using the remote App only very occasionally.

[Hifi_swlon]

Regardless of other developments, I hope the rotary and 'chrome' design of the Expert remote volume control survives - even if as a separate app. Considering how much I use Roon, I actually still generally go to the Devialet app for volume. OK Im not using roonAIR right now but I use the Roon volume a lot on other zones and don't enjoy the slider - the Devialet app just feels nicer.

OK the current app is neglected by Devialet, but its unique and pleasing to use and deserves to be saved. All it needs is the screen graphics updating to the same as the devialet since the firmware update (a couple hours work), and ideally have the buttons and tone controls etc (probably a days work).

I'd hate to see the whole Devialet range controlled by an app of 'generic' design with no style. If any update becomes a slider volume, it will be a huge letdown. This is of course assuming anything actually materialises and works at all.

[whatmore]

Any remote app is completely useless until they fix the wifi phono-stage interference problem

The remote App works perfectly with WiFi disabled on the Devialet if you are connected through Ethernet and on the same network as an other WiFi AP to which your phone or tablet can be connected. 

This is how I’m using mine. 

Jean-Marie

PS I grant you than since Roon support of Air, I’m using the remote App only very occasionally.

Thanks! I didn’t realise you could use the remote app with wifi disabled. 
I’ll give it a go when I get home.

[bernardl]

…
If the  Devialet itself could become a roon core then game over... they kill the market for good and the rest of the source/streamer/dac/pre-amp/amp/cable industry mostly goes bankrupt.

Why should the Devialet  become a Roon Core? According to Roon themselves, you get best sound quality when the Core (server) software and the renderer software are running on different devices. Whether we're using the AIR protocol with Roon as at present, or RAAT when the CI amps become Roon Ready, the Devialet is a renderer so we should get best results running Roon Core on a different device.

In addition Roon Core can do a lot of processing, especially if you're using the Roon DSP engine. The Devialet's processor also does a fair bit of DSP processing with things like SAM and tone controls. The current processor on the CI board may well not be capable off handling the DSP functions for Roon plus the Devialet DSP functions so that means needing to get a processor upgrade and new software. Considering the last 6 months of mucking around with the CI board rollout and the software program associated with that, how many of us CI owners would look forward eagerly to going through another hardware and software upgrade program to make our amps capable of doing Roon Core functions as well as what they are currently doing? Not many, and I suspect that not a lot of non-CI owners are going to rush to that upgrade after hearing of all the issues that CI owners have gone through with the current upgrade program, especially to end up with a 1 device solution for Roon that Roon themselves say is less than ideal.

There is for sure value in having a Roon core accessible from various network replay devices, but I would be surprised if a one box solution (core and renderer both running on the streamer board) were not superior to a network based multi-box setup. I'd be very interested in understanding the reason why Roon claims this. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the result of a willingness to stick to their architecture.

I don't believe you have factual information to back up your claim that the streamer board doesn't have the power needed to run a Roon core on top of the other tasks running in the Devialet, do you?

It seems obvious that the streamer board was designed to run software similar to a Roon core, and the Devialet implementation will probably be very similar indeed, only will it lack the sophistication of Roon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David A]

…
If the  Devialet itself could become a roon core then game over... they kill the market for good and the rest of the source/streamer/dac/pre-amp/amp/cable industry mostly goes bankrupt.

Why should the Devialet  become a Roon Core? According to Roon themselves, you get best sound quality when the Core (server) software and the renderer software are running on different devices. Whether we're using the AIR protocol with Roon as at present, or RAAT when the CI amps become Roon Ready, the Devialet is a renderer so we should get best results running Roon Core on a different device.

In addition Roon Core can do a lot of processing, especially if you're using the Roon DSP engine. The Devialet's processor also does a fair bit of DSP processing with things like SAM and tone controls. The current processor on the CI board may well not be capable off handling the DSP functions for Roon plus the Devialet DSP functions so that means needing to get a processor upgrade and new software. Considering the last 6 months of mucking around with the CI board rollout and the software program associated with that, how many of us CI owners would look forward eagerly to going through another hardware and software upgrade program to make our amps capable of doing Roon Core functions as well as what they are currently doing? Not many, and I suspect that not a lot of non-CI owners are going to rush to that upgrade after hearing of all the issues that CI owners have gone through with the current upgrade program, especially to end up with a 1 device solution for Roon that Roon themselves say is less than ideal.

There is for sure value in having a Roon core accessible from various network replay devices, but I would be surprised if a one box solution (core and renderer both running on the streamer board) were not superior to a network based multi-box setup. I'd be very interested in understanding the reason why Roon claims this. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the result of a willingness to stick to their architecture.

I don't believe you have factual information to back up your claim that the streamer board doesn't have the power needed to run a Roon core on top of the other tasks running in the Devialet, do you?

It seems obvious that the streamer board was designed to run software similar to a Roon core, and the Devialet implementation will probably be very similar indeed, only will it lack the sophistication of Roon.

Cheers,
Bernard

You say that you would be surprised if a one box solution were not superior to a two box solution and that you wouldn't be surprised if Roon's claim that a two box solution is superior were the result of a willingness to stick to their architecture. Well, Roon are the people who are making the decision about their architecture and they have their reasons for choosing that architecture over other architectures. Could they change their architecture and produce a solution running on a single processor? Well, their software can do that but they have definitely stated that separating the core and renderer functions is superior. Others like Antipodes who produce excellent servers which run Roon Core also believe that a two box solution is superior and have just produced a two box solution with their CX and EX which they believe is superior to their previous flagship model, the DX, and are now presenting the CX/EX combination as their flagship. The Antipodes servers can also run other server and renderer software instead of Roon for those who don't wish to use Roon and they haven't suggested that any of those other server and renderer applications won't be improved if run on separate processors. I think the new Innuos flagship product is also a two box solution. If a software developer and one, possibly two, hardware developers, all well respected, believe that a two box solution is superior,I think that's an opinion which deserves some very serious consideration before it is dismissed. Unless I see some very good reasons for doubting Roon's opinion on the superiority of a two box solution, I'm taking them at their word.

Secondly I most definitely did not say that the Devialet CI board was incapable of running both functions. I said I wondered if it were capable of doing so. That means I don't know whether it can or it can't, and I don't think you know either. Apart from processing power, consider that running Roon Core requires storage for the software application and storage for Roon's library database which is separate to the actual music files and can take up a fair amount of space in itself for large libraries. Does the CI board have sufficient storage for the Roon server software and library? Devialet  have never mentioned that the board could make a Devialet capable of hosting and running 3rd party software or any plan to implement such a feature at any stage. It isn't at all clear to me that the CI board was designed to run software similar to Roon Core.

Finally, Roon produce versions of their Core software that can run on various platforms. They haven't allowed others to develop their own implementation of the Roon Core software and judging by their current practice of making their own versions of the software to run on different platforms they are not likely to allow Devialet to develop their own implementation of the Roon Core software, especially a version which lacked the sophistication of Roon's own versions given that they are obviously invested in producing a particular user experience.

You may be right on all points but I think that Roon have a much better understanding of their product than either you or I and I'm willing to take their view as correct until I'm given good reasons for doubting it. I also note that Devialet have definitely committed to making the amps with the CI board Roon Ready but they have never made any statements at all about intending for those amps to run server software as well. I see no reason to believe that we'll ever be running Roon Core on the CI board or that doing so would be more desirable than running Roon Core on a separate computer/server/NAS drive which are our current options for running Roon Core.

[Confused]

Regardless of other developments, I hope the rotary and 'chrome' design of the Expert remote volume control survives - even if as a separate app.  Considering how much I use Roon, I actually still generally go to the Devialet app for volume.  OK Im not using roonAIR right now but I use the Roon volume a lot on other zones and don't enjoy the slider - the Devialet app just feels nicer.

OK the current app is neglected by Devialet, but its unique and pleasing to use and deserves to be saved.  All it needs is the screen graphics updating to the same as the devialet since the firmware update (a couple hours work), and ideally have the buttons and tone controls etc (probably a days work).  

I'd hate to see the whole Devialet range controlled by an app of 'generic' design with no style.  If any update becomes a slider volume, it will be a huge letdown.  This is of course assuming anything actually materialises and works at all.

It does not happen often, but I absolutely agree with @Hifi_swlon regarding the 'old' app.  In fact, if the app could be updated to include basic stuff like tone controls, toggles for SAM, DPM, and similar, then this would most definitely enhance the enjoyment I get from my Devialet amp.  I am not sure if it is just a day's work, software is not my area of expertise so I cannot judge, but this must surely be easier than some of the CI board software that they are working on currently?

While I am at it, a quick note to @Jean-Marie.  You state: "The remote App works perfectly with WiFi disabled on the Devialet if you are connected through Ethernet and on the same network as an other WiFi AP to which your phone or tablet can be connected."

I use the remote app exactly as you describe above, but for me it does not work perfectly.  It works fine for a while, drops out, reconnects, drops out, it is very frustrating.  In my house I can stream using wifi to an iPad for hours without a glitch, every app I use on my iPad functions perfectly (the Devialet app is the one and only exception) I can stream hi def Netfix with surround sound without a stutter or a glitch.  It is very frustrating as I do like the app, even as it is now with limited functionality I like the app, I like the volume control, I like the clear indication of volume level.  It is good!  A while ago it was very nearly 100% stable, but this seems to be lost now.

[Hifi_swlon]

It does not happen often, but I absolutely agree with @Hifi_swlon

Ouch!

[whatmore]

Any remote app is completely useless until they fix the wifi phono-stage interference problem

The remote App works perfectly with WiFi disabled on the Devialet if you are connected through Ethernet and on the same network as an other WiFi AP to which your phone or tablet can be connected. 

This is how I’m using mine. 

Jean-Marie

PS I grant you than since Roon support of Air, I’m using the remote App only very occasionally.

Thanks! I didn’t realise you could use the remote app with wifi disabled. 
I’ll give it a go when I get home.

So maybe I’m missing a step here but it doesn’t work. 
My expert 120 is connected via Ethernet to my Macmini. 
Wifi is disabled. 
My phone is on the same network as the macmini but the remote app can’t see the devialet