Euphony OS w/Stylus player setup and issues thread

Oh and @ArthurPower I think it is necessary that you show in your signature that you are from Euphony otherwise people get angry over here, a specially the boss. 

🤫🤫🤫🤫

BTW the Guys at Euphony told me that the trial version of Euphony OS can only be booted with legacy boot and not with UEFI boot. It doesn't matter whether it's flashed to an USB flash drive or a SSD.

They know that this creates problems for some people with devices without legacy boot but they don't have a solution for it right now.

Only after buying the full version you can install it to a SSD that can be booted with UEFI boot.

So €249/$289 per machine license so double for a dual box, chained setup.

When Euphony updates to a new, major version like 4.0 it seems one has to pay for the update: €86/$99. Again double for a dual setup.

IMO this is a bit steep, e.g. compared to a Roon Lifetime license. And yes this is coming from someone who easily pays e.g. >1000 for a power cable.  

Wouldn’t it be possible to use AudioLinux for the server and Euphony for the endpoint? 

1 hour ago, Dutch said:

So €249/$289 per machine license so double for a dual box, chained setup.

 

When Euphony updates to a new, major version like 4.0 it seems one has to pay for the update: €86/$99. Again double for a dual setup.

 

IMO this is a bit steep, e.g. compared to a Roon Lifetime license. And yes this is coming from someone who easily pays e.g. >1000 for a power cable.  

 

 

It's also quite a bit more expensive than JRiver updates for major versions.

33 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

It's also quite a bit more expensive than JRiver updates for major versions.

HQPlayer and Euphony are both relatively pricey, but you get great sound and great support with your purchase. I think they're worth it myself. Now that I've heard how good my system can sound, I wouldn't be satisfied without including them in my chain.

But yes, a discounted bundle purchase or a group purchase would be nice.

1 hour ago, RickyV said:

Wouldn’t it be possible to use AudioLinux for the server and Euphony for the endpoint? 

I was wondering the same.

@ArthurPower Great to see you join this discussion and I look forward to your input.

Leaving aside the cost of Euphony licences and the relative value/expense in this hobby, here's the question that's been bouncing around my restless mind.

For Audiolinux NUC server and endpoint combos the general consensus has seemed to be that the endpoint contributes 80-60% of the SQ improvements (largely because it's closest to the DAC) and the server contributes 20-40% of the SQ improvement.

So if I was to only buy one Euphony licence then it seems intuitive that it would be better for SQ to use it on the endpoint rather than the server.

In your opinion is my logic missing anything here?

Also given Euphony is essentially server software that will work as an endpoint are there any compelling arguments for ensuring the server and endpoint both run on Euphony?

Finally, in the Euphony universe do your users seem to agree with the 80-60 endpoint and 20-40 server contributions that I've quoted above.

Many Thanks,

Alan

PS as someone that works in software development (non audio alas) I totally get the argument that better support costs more. Just saying I'm not being critical of the costs. I'm simply trying to assess the options here.

22 hours ago, ArthurPower said:

A UEFI trial version is in the works. 

The Euphony support also told me just now 😉 Looking forward to it!

Hi,

the Qobuz implementation is not realy perfect. Are you planning an Update, that it has the same functions like Volumio, Daphile and Roon are offering? Will there also be a future access to Music on a USB-Stick or external HDD/SSD?

Thx, and regards

Sunny

6 minutes ago, sunny_time_99 said:

Hi,

the Qobuz implementation is not realy perfect. Are you planning an Update, that it has the same functions like Volumio, Daphile and Roon are offering? Will there also be a future access to Music on a USB-Stick or external HDD/SSD?

 

Thx, and regards

 

Sunny

Sunny,

You can use an external drive right now.  Just add it in the library control system.  

Thx @bobfa

while comparing so much during the last weeks... I did not see that point. But the qobuz thing is still open. I don't use tidal. Wow is the tidal implementation, tidal-user?

Regards

Sunny

2 hours ago, sunny_time_99 said:

Thx @bobfa

while comparing so much during the last weeks... I did not see that point. But the qobuz thing is still open. I don't use tidal. Wow is the tidal implementation, tidal-user?

 

Regards

 

Sunny

I was only using the Stylus player for a few days.  I went right to a quick A/B with Roon and stayed there.  

38 minutes ago, bobfa said:

I was only using the Stylus player for a few days.  I went right to a quick A/B with Roon and stayed there.  

You mean u use Roon via Euphony OS vs Stylus player and you prefer Roon ? How do you send the music files via Roon to Euphony OS.

Did you usee 100% buffer on Euphony ? 
Where are the music files stored ? 

On 3/20/2019 at 3:17 PM, RickyV said:

Wouldn’t it be possible to use AudioLinux for the server and Euphony for the endpoint? 

Or vice versa, depending if you are using Stylus or not. I presume AudioLinux would work fine instead of Euphony OS in the device when no music files playback is needed. Or you can switch them around etc. 

Ok so, Euphony is built on Archlinux, Audiolinux is built on Archlinux.

The same RoonServer and Roon Bridge code runs on Archlinux, both the Euphony and Audiolinux variants.

So most of the time the same Roon and Archlinux code is running. So what is different?

We don't know the difference because we can't look into Euphony as there is no root access.

With Audiolinux we have root and can experiment with tunable parameters and new software components all day long.

Euphony is expensive. Archlinux is not.

Why would one use Euphony to run Roon?

On 3/20/2019 at 5:19 PM, BigAlMc said:

 

I was wondering the same.

 

@ArthurPower Great to see you join this discussion and I look forward to your input.

 

Leaving aside the cost of Euphony licences and the relative value/expense in this hobby, here's the question that's been bouncing around my restless mind.

 

For Audiolinux NUC server and endpoint combos the general consensus has seemed to be that the endpoint contributes 80-60% of the SQ improvements (largely because it's closest to the DAC) and the server contributes 20-40% of the SQ improvement.

 

So if I was to only buy one Euphony licence then it seems intuitive that it would be better for SQ to use it on the endpoint rather than the server.

 

In your opinion is my logic missing anything here?

 

Also given Euphony is essentially server software that will work as an endpoint are there any compelling arguments for ensuring the server and endpoint both run on Euphony?

 

Finally, in the Euphony universe do your users seem to agree with the 80-60 endpoint and 20-40 server contributions that I've quoted above.

 

Many Thanks,

Alan

 

PS as someone that works in software development (non audio alas) I totally get the argument that better support costs more. Just saying I'm not being critical of the costs. I'm simply trying to assess the options here.

The service of Euphony is pretty good, so you pay for what you get. They always respond well to me, across the world (from Europe, and US), so you can ask them around the clock in any tome zone!. They are constantly updating the software and answers any glitches and then improve on what the customers have issues with.  I like the fact you can carry the program/OS to new devices when you upgrade the computer. (some software companies do not have lifetime assess and so limit to how many times you can load onto a computer). It also can do "ECache" which works nicely to load any files (from external drive, ? maybe also from network) into the local drive to play. So you can basically attach your huge library of files for playback without uploading into the internal driving.

I cannot answer about the questions regards to server vs endpoint. I use a single box solutiion (all in one PC) From investment point of view it makes sense to pay for the software that does both music playback and endpoint. Though not thrilled with library management the stylus does over very easy to use music playback with HQplayer embedded, PCM/DSD upsampling, M-ch playback even SACD iso files ( I was told this can be done with the V3, though I have not tried).  As I single box system I can assure you that it works very nicely. 

From my experience, how noisy the computer and quality of audio bridge (USB or I2S) at the endpoint may be most important. Euphony OS simply is not causing more noisy issues like windows or MAC OS. I am not saying Hardware trump OS/software, though. 

I find the OS/software player really affect how very Hi RES is being played. The biggest improvement is with DXD (24/352) & DSD, perhaps because there is more room to improve?  Switching from MAC OS with Audirvanna to Euphony's biggest improvement is with these files. Euphony is also more efficient in that it does not occupy too much RAM, so even with 4 G RAM on 2011 CPU I am able to play DSD256 quite well, but not with MAC OS using same laptop. 

On 3/20/2019 at 5:19 PM, BigAlMc said:

 

I was wondering the same.

 

@ArthurPower Great to see you join this discussion and I look forward to your input.

 

Leaving aside the cost of Euphony licences and the relative value/expense in this hobby, here's the question that's been bouncing around my restless mind.

 

For Audiolinux NUC server and endpoint combos the general consensus has seemed to be that the endpoint contributes 80-60% of the SQ improvements (largely because it's closest to the DAC) and the server contributes 20-40% of the SQ improvement.

 

So if I was to only buy one Euphony licence then it seems intuitive that it would be better for SQ to use it on the endpoint rather than the server.

 

In your opinion is my logic missing anything here?

 

Also given Euphony is essentially server software that will work as an endpoint are there any compelling arguments for ensuring the server and endpoint both run on Euphony?

 

Finally, in the Euphony universe do your users seem to agree with the 80-60 endpoint and 20-40 server contributions that I've quoted above.

 

Many Thanks,

Alan

 

PS as someone that works in software development (non audio alas) I totally get the argument that better support costs more. Just saying I'm not being critical of the costs. I'm simply trying to assess the options here.

I think Euphony is about 80% of the SQ improvement. We have never recommended that anyone use Euphony on a two computer based playback system, but some customers just like the idea and implemented it that way in their setup. When you're streaming over a network there are a lot more variables to consider. From cabling, the router, the power supply for the router, and the computer that is streaming the audio. So the OS on the streaming server can make a difference, but I think you need to consider all the pro's and con's of having a two computer based playback system. Any Linux distro on the server is going to be better then windows.

28 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Why would one use Euphony to run Roon?

Because it sounds better!  On my system, to my ear a lot better.  Also to three others who know my system and have listened to both. 

I really want others to try!  

9 minutes ago, bobfa said:

Because it sounds better!  On my system, to my ear a lot better.  Also to three others who know my system and have listened to both. 

 

I really want others to try!  

What PC do you use for Roon vs the one with Euphony OS? If you are using trial version with USB boot it won't be a fair comparision.

53 minutes ago, Chopin75 said:

You mean u use Roon via Euphony OS vs Stylus player and you prefer Roon ? How do you send the music files via Roon to Euphony OS.

Did you usee 100% buffer on Euphony ? 
Where are the music files stored ? 

Yes I had 100% buffer and I tested with both of my machines With Stylus directly hooked to the DAC (I expected the Xeon to not do as well with USB out and from basic testing I did my NUC was better)

I use a split system, server and endpoint.  Currently the OS on both is Euphony.  Euphony OS has the setup to run Roon Server instead of Stylus.  (NOTE you still have to pay for Roon Server).  My music is on a USB 3.0 drive attached to the server.  Look at my "From 0 to " threads to see the server and endpoint builds I did. 

My endpoint is also running Euphony OS and Roon Bridge.  (NOTE!!! There is a bug in the current release of Euphony that makes this system not work right.  The OS does not start Roon Bridge properly. I have a preliminary fix on my endpoint)

I have been writing about the listening tests on the Linux Shootout thread I created.  As of now Roon sounds better than Stylus to me.

1 minute ago, Chopin75 said:

What PC do you use for Roon vs the one with Euphony OS? If you are using trial version with USB boot it won't be a fair comparision.

See the threads I just mentioned.  I paid for two licenses.

8 hours ago, ArthurPower said:

Any Linux distro on the server is going to be better then windows

I thank Arthur for joining the group, welcome. 

In reading the discussion on Euphony, and its implementation on my current server and how to manage an install of Euphony. Currently has Win2016 Xeon based running Roon core. The audi files are on another server, so the media server pulls from that server.  Audio is over Ethernet direct to a Lumin U1 via a JCAT Network card. It 'sounds' out of the way, no real way of telling really what's responsible for the sound, but what I hear is very good, very happy with it. In evaluating the switch to Euphony what level of improvement can be expected?  Will bass better, better timing of delivery of bits to the U1, sound stage? 

Further.

The current Supermicro X10SAT server type motherboard supports 64bit versions of RedHat, Fedora, SuSe SLS, Ubuntu, Solaris & CentOS. How does Euphony sit in the range of OS, is it close to any of the Linux family? Would it support a server type motherboard and chipsets, graphic drivers..and on. Last thing I wish to do is change out a motherboard, RAM, that's "compatible".

Financially, I would need to pay for a licence for Euphony and Roon Server, not much change from USD1000 plus the hardware if applicable.  I would need some strong reasons for Euphony, against AudioLinux or leaving the system the way it is.

10 hours ago, bobfa said:

Because it sounds better!  On my system, to my ear a lot better.  Also to three others who know my system and have listened to both. 

 

I really want others to try!  

So you are comparing the Audiolinux out of the box experience with the Euphony out of the box experience?