I have about 52,000 tracks, approximately 1.5TB of FLAC music files saved on the Rose’s internal SSD and it used to take more than 3 hours for a full rescan of the Music Library.
After the last update, a full scan takes about 1 hour 40 minutes, so - although scanning time is still rather long - things have improved.
The scanning time and the fact that SMB1 must be activate are two issues for a lot of people. HifiRose, do something about this or you are going to loose a lot of market share!
@Marc_62
I do agree with your opinion.
HiFiRose should be very concerned about customer satisfaction regarding these issues…
I also have Roon. The difference is that Roon is on my desktop computer with a poweful processor and a lot of memory.
I am beginning to believe that the lack of speed in scanning on my R150B is because it has a much less powerful processor and less memory. Thats why we will never see the same scanning time as Roon in the R150B. Any comment from HiFiRose would be grateful.
The only way to use the R150B with a large media library is to use the app in Folderview.
Hi Alessandro, I’m not clear on the effect of an internal Storage. Manny seems to say that with the internal SSD storage, he doesn’t need to rescan the DB after ripping a CD, to see and play it. Are you saying the opposite? I tried to rip a CD on a microSD card in the Rose, but I did have to rescan to see it… So is the SSD storage a solution to avoid rescanning? If so, I’d get one instead of playing my music from my NAS. Many thanks
The answer is no - I have to rescan the SSD and it takes over 7 hours which is ridiculous 
SSD internal storage is not the solution. (not if you have a media library that is 12 TB as I have)
The problem in my opinion is, as I said earlier, that my 150B has not enough processor and memory capacity to scan my media library in a reasonable time. That will never change because it is hardware dependent. They still can do some trimming and change SMB versions, but we will never get acceptable scanning times.
I would be happy if ROSE could clarify why the scanning time is so long if it is not hardware dependant.
Maybe shoddy programming??
Yes, I agree. That’s how Naim Core is doing it 
I have had my 150B for more than 1.5 years and the scanning time have improved marginally. I complained about the scanning time for 1.5 years ago and nothing much has happend so I would not be so confident that ROSE will fix this.
I agree with Flash that if ROSE had some simple knowledge of database structure they would have fixed a incremental scan a long time ago which would have reduced the rescan to minutes instead of 24 hours which is my rescan time. But I think that the problem is a hardware problem in conjuntion with a bad database structure that don’t allow incremental scan.
Once again I would be happy if ROSE would comment on this. Last time they leaved a comment they told me to be patient. After 1.5 year how patient do I have to be. After all this is a product in the high end market (at least regarding to price)
Yes, it needs a rescan and for me (only a bit over 100000 titles on an internal 8TB SSD) it takes 23h with the current firmware.
Hello, we are aware that many people are inquiring about the scanning speed. We are making efforts in various ways to improve it, but due to the limitations and structure of the system, it is not an easy problem to solve. Thank you for your understanding.
Thank you for your reply.
Sadly it doesn’t please me that I was right about the limitations of the system stopping a satisfactory rescan time. The fact is that you (ROSE) will never come around the limitations of the system because it is hardware and database related. So we are stuck with those bad rescanning times.
The way I am solving this problem is by using Folderview when I select music to play and if I want information of artists and albums I use ROON (luckely i have liftetime membership)
I’m not convinced that the hardware is the real limitation (you can also for for example a real old Logitech Touch or older RPIs as LMS server and client with thousands of tracks).
It seems for me more, that (I’m now developing near 40 years hard- and software) there is a limitation in the developer and design resources…
Also I using the Rose primarly as Roon endpoint (otherwise I’d sold it) , but it has to work also as a standalone device (also as backup in the case you’re offline).
Because you can’t use the Rose as gapless UPNP client (no openhome integrated), you’ve to use directly connected sources and so for larger music collections, the search functionallity for which you need a scan, is a must.
I have a Logitech Squeezebox Touch (in my HiFi graveyard). For the Logitech Touch to play from my NAS it has to have a LMS server installed on my PC (the PC is doing the scanning and storing the DB) so that was a bad example of the hardware requirement. Belive me when I say, among other things, it is a hardware limitation .
I fully agree with you that there is a limitation in the developer and design resources or else the problems wouldn’t have excisted.
No, you can use a Logitech Touch (USB HDD connected to it) standalone without any PC and then there runs the LMS and the Touch acts as server and client (in the same way you can configure PicorePlayer on a RPI) and so it’s very good example for showing that also a system with weak hardware can perform much better than Rose do…
Yes, I can use Logitech Touch standalone with a USB HDD. Even if could find a USB HHD with 12TB for my media library I am sure that the Logitech Touch can’t manage it, because it has a poor processor and memory capacity the same way as the 150B has a poor processor and memory capacity.
I understand that for people with small media library the capacity of the 150B:s processor and memory is enough and has acceptable rescan time. But ROSE should issue a warning that the product is not for people with large media librarys.
You don’t get my point:
My experience is, that the Squeezebox (I’m owning 4 touches and some classics) can handle also in standalone modus large libraries, but it becomes slow.
A RPi 4 with 4GB and PicorePlayer as LMS server and client scans my 10 TB in 0.5 hours and a rescan needs only a few minutes.
Here we’ve nearly the same hardware, but a complete other designed firmware.
Ok, I get your point. If Rose 150B has 4 GB DDR3 RAM and a Hexacore CPU unit 1.8 GHz Cortex -A72, what do you think (we won’t get an answer from ROSE) is the limitations and structure of the system which ROSE says is the cause of the long rescan times?
What do you mean by limitation in the developer and design resources? Lack of resources or knowledge or both.
I still think that the Squeezebox will take 48 hours to scan my library. 
I don’t know anything about Rose Audio internals and so all of this are speculations, but a few points:
For me it seems, that Rose audio can build great hardware, but have a lack in the software development, which is the same with many other smaller (for example primare or emotiva) brands in the audio industry.