I still have a Nucleus +. I have been using this for many years as a Roon server, and it is very stable; I almost forgot that I have this gear in my network—no need to restart, no noise, nearly perfect.
I am saying almost because it is ok if it is used through intramet in RJ45 network connection. The USB output sounds terrible. This was the only reason for buying another streamer/Roon server.
I hope this new generation has improved this USB output; maybe I will try again.
Yup, it’s a perfect appliance for the purpose. Mostly because Roon did not try to reinvent a (square) wheel and used an off the shelf competently designed in a custom case. And of course Roon Labs are far more likely to know what the Roon OS should contain than some thiord-party outfit…
I doubt that the new generation (Titan?) USB implementation is significantly different. It’s still a motherboard USB port. Honestly, I have never heard any issues with PC USB output, but this also depends very much on the DAC implementation. Some USB receivers are better thsn others.
You just need a competently made DAC. But Roon’s recommendation is (even if it is mostly lip services to the audiophile crowd) to stream from the server over a network.
Since March, I have the RS130 and since June the Roon system (Nucleus etc…). In March I wrote here about the sound performance with Roon vs. RoseApp. I have to correct myself, that Roon <sounds better, than via RoseApp>. This was the quick listening experiences at the dealer at that time. Now, at home, I made direct comparisitions from identical source: RoseApp → RS130: sound is more quiet, warmer, open and more defined in spatial reproduction. Roon → RS130: sound is harscher and thin with less dynamic and compressed spatial reproduction. Via Roon, all filters are disabled, so that a ‘bitperfect’ transfer is applied. Further network and power supply optimization (KECES P8 for Nucleus and router) didn’t solve the lack of performance, instead the gap of the reproduction is bigger, than before! Now, I definitly prefer the (direct!) streaming via RoseApp instead Roon, but the Roon app/system is far better in managing the library etc… My question to this community: why is streaming via Roon comparingly bad compared with direct streaming of the RS130? Does the RS130 do buffering in it’s cache and via Roon not? (can that be the reason?). How is Roon interface protocoll implemented in the RS130 itself and can there be the fault? Other users confirmed the same lack of sound here and via other forums ex: Roon forum thread… What now?
Amazing, things people can convince themselves they can hear, when they do not know how to properly compare them…
Some people do belkieve that certain 0’s and 1’s are more magical than the others 
There is no real standard for tags in WAV files, like there is for FLAC and similar, so some tools work well, some don’t, with any particular tagged WAV. BluOS is generally more mature, too.
Depending on a particular Bluesound model, there could be some audible differences, really, apart from the newer X and Icon, DACs in the Node line are not quite as good as Sabres that Rose uses.Although with your 130 it would mostly depend on what you have plugged into it.
Airplay is as silly as anything else Apple makes, and different versions of Airplay (or different combinations of source and receiver) might well be downsampling and even applying lossy compression which could be audible, too.
There shouldn’t be, of course, and for network performance, it should be better, too.
THere wouldn’t be any either, FLAC (or ALAC) decodes into identical copy of the original WAV.
Indeed. And Apple wants you to use Apple equipment only for full effect.
To my great despair Roon actually sounds colder, than the same song with the Rose app.
Yet Roon is more user-friendly to use!!
Gil
I assume you have volume-matched? No difference in my system.
Because we only support Roon Ready and not Roon core.
We are currently unable to add Roon to Rose devices or the RoseConnect app, but we will try to make it possible in the future.