Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    dCS Network Bridge Review

    NBR-front-new-2.jpg

     

     

     

    Who dCS aka data Conversion Systems from Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Creators of British designed, manufactured and assembled digital audio products. Think the Rolls Royce of HiFi build quality combined with McLaren performance. 

     

     

    What : The Network Bridge. A digital to digital converter with Ethernet input and digital audio output. The Network Bridge feature set includes Roon Ready support, UPnP / DLNA rendering, AirPlay, Tidal, Spotify, bit perfect output or down sampled output to match a DAC, MQA core decoding, and support or PCM up through 24/384 and DSD up through DSD128.

     

    dCS also provides its own iOS app for control and configuration of the Network Bridge. The app supports music stored on a network, locally attached hard drive, or streaming via Tidal and Spotify. People who don't want the complexity of a third party application or who like simple interfaces for just listening to music, will be very pleased with the dCS iOS app. 

     

    I like what dCS has done with the app in that it's very simple and straight forward. Users who want more features can easily add a Roon or DLNA server and fire up another app.

     


    When : Released in 2017 with an initial set of features that has been upgraded over time via firmware.

     


    Why : The Network Bridge is a product many manufacturers wish they'd have built. The Bridge not only breathes life into legacy DACs from dCS and others, but it also enhances the features and sonic quality of many current DACs. Many legacy DACs feature S/PDIF or AES inputs that support various sample rates but don't have other digital inputs that enable network streaming or remote control or any of the other aforementioned features. Attaching the Network Bridge to these DACs essentially creates a new digital system very close to what's currently available. For example, there are sonic qualities to the older dCS Scarlatti DACs that I just love. Whether this is me being nostalgic or not is beside the point that the Network Bridge can turn a Scarlatti into a product that wasn't even conceived when it was released in 2007.

     

    Enhancing new DACs with a Network Bridge is another huge benefit. Let's face it, many DACs aren't cheap. Nobody likes to put one on the shelf and by a new one because of missing features. Adding a Network Bridge to DAC immediately enables all of the above features. For example, adding the Bridge to an upgraded Berkeley Audio Design DAC not only enhances its feature set greatly but also provides a core decoded MQA stream for the DAC to render. Don't care about more features? No problem. Adding the Network Bridge to a Schiit Yggdrasil and connecting it via AES can improve the sound quality greatly. 

     

    One huge benefit to many music lovers on the Roon bandwagon is the fact that the Bridge turns almost any DAC into a Roon endpoint. If the DAC can connect to the Bridge, Roon will be able to send it audio. Technically the Bridge is the Roon ready endpoint, but when viewed as a system of Bridge + DAC, the difference is neither here nor there. 

     

     

     

    dcs-20-07-016.jpg

     

     

     


    Listening

     

    The dCS Network Bridge is all about listening to music through whatever DAC one has in the system. My main system for this review consisted of Ethernet into the Network bridge, AES into the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS2 MQA, Balanced XLR into Constellation Audio Inspiration monoblocks, into TAD CR1 loudspeakers. I used many different sources of music including JRiver for UPnP/DLNA, Roon, dCS iOS app, Tidal, Spotify, AirPlay from iPhone 8, and a local solid state USB drive attached to the Bridge.

     

    Here are my listening impressions of the Network Bridge.


    Chet Baker's album by the simple name Chet is an all time favorite of mine, especially the unobtainable Analogue Productions remaster. I recently stumbled upon an album with many of the same tracks called The Complete Legendary Sessions, with Chet Baker and Bill Evans. This album also sounds wonderful, with nearly zero dynamic range compression (DR 16) and a touch less tape noise in the background. Sure Chet and Bill are the headliners, but Pepper Adams steals the show on his baritone saxophone. 

     

    Listening to track one, Alone Together, through the dCS Network Bridge / Berkeley Audio Design combination, Chet's opening trumpet intro sounded fantastic. The best piece of this from a geeky audio perspective was the bleed-through that could be heard as Chet's trumpet emanated from the left channel but trailed off in both the left and right channels. There is a delicacy to the decay of the trumpet in the right channel that enables the listener to draw a complete diagram of the recording space in one's head. 

     

    At 1:19 when Pepper Adams eases his baritone sax into the track and quickly ramps it up, is when this track absolutely pulled me in emotionally. I was no longer judging or reviewing an audio component. I was placed center-stage between Chet on the left and Pepper on the right, with both bleeding into the center of the soundstage. The dCS Network Bridge really delivered a pristine audio signal to the Alpha DAC RS2 MQA, enabling me to immerse myself in both the old school recording techniques that allowed instruments to bleed into both channels, but more importantly into the feelings and fascination this track evoked. 


    Giving the Network bridge a chance to show its stuff in another way, I played the 2012 Mobile Fidelity remaster of Bob Dylan's The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan. This album was stored as DSD files on a 1TB bus powered solid state drive connected directly to the back of the Network Bridge. 

     

    Two things to note about this configuration.

     

    1. Berkeley DACs don't support DSD. Fortunately the Network Bridge has a powerful FPGA that performs an integer down sample to 24 bit / 176.4 kHz PCM for output to the Berkeley over AES. Connected to legacy dCS DACs this feature can be used to convert DXD or DSD128 to 24 bit and either 192, 176.4, 96, or 88.2 kHz, over single or dual wire connections. DSD64 is accepted into any legacy dCS DAC and won't need conversion. This down sampling could take place in a number of third party software applications, but not everyone uses a third party app with quality DSP and some people want to use the dCS iOS app without relying on another company for features, support, and in some cases increased complexity. This brings me to number 2.

     

    2. The Network Bridge USB input worked very well with a connected a hard drive. If I didn't have several terabytes of music, I would definitely store all my music on an SSD connected to the Network Bridge. The dCS iOS app offers the basics without any complexity. Navigating the USB drive is as simple as tapping the USB drive from the home screen and browsing the folders on the drive. It's really a no nonsense, get down to listening style of playback. I should also mention that the only network requirement for playing music this way is a stable network at any speed. The Network Bridge only receives commands via the network rather than audio files traversing the network. Adding Tidal is a different story, but not relevant to this method of playback.


    Back to The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan. As soon as I pressed play on Girl From the North Country, I was immediately pleased with the expansive soundstage. Dylan's nasally voice was crisp, clear and appropriately large right between my TAD CR1 loudspeakers. Listening closer to Dylan's vocal in the opening verse, I heard his breath on the microphone for the first time that I can remember. I'm sure it has always been on the recording, but I'd never noticed it previous to using the Network Bridge with the Alpha DAC RS2 MQA. In addition to Dylan's vocal, two other aspects of this track are worth noting. The texture and depth of his acoustic guitar from start to finish are excellent. The guitar strings strummed or individually plucked in many cases had a depth or air around them giving away clues to the recording environment and instrument selection. All these seemingly separate sonic pieces came together incredibly well through this dCS / Berkeley combo, into a singular expansive soundstage. Well done dCS.

     

    The last aspect I must mention is the obnoxious level of Dylan's harmonica at the end of the track. Certainly not the fault of dCS for reproducing exactly what's on the recording, but in this case reproducing exactly what's on the recording resulted in a painful listening experience. I now understand why people use volume leveling, although it would be sacrilegious for such a transparent product like the Network Bridge to offer it as a feature. 


    What good would a HiFi review be without mentioning MQA? Only kidding. I bring up the topic as MQA is a feature of both the Berkeley DAC and dCS Network Bridge, but in ways that both need each other in my system. Berkeley DACs only do the final rendering stage of the MQA process, while the Network Bridge handles the more resource intensive initial decoding of the process. Some call what the Bridge does the first unfold of the MQA origami. Keep in mind that the Bridge will handle the MQA decoding for output to a non-MQA DAC as well.

     

    Streaming the MQA version of the title track to Nina Simone's album I Put a Spell on You via Tidal, I immediately notice two things. The letters MQA were present on the Berkeley's front panel and the MQA version of the track was substantially louder than the non-MQA version. I have no idea if these two versions originate from the same master, but they sounded very different. In the interest of getting this review done I only conducted a cursory investigation into the level differences heard as this isn't a referendum on MQA. It's a review of the dCS Network Bridge, a product that supports MQA decoding for audio delivery to a DAC that may or may not be an MQA renderer. 

     

    The MQA version of the title track sounded a bit synthetic through the dCS / Berkeley combination. Nina's vocal was incredibly centered. Perhaps a touch small or over focused for lack of a better description. 

     

    I played the non-MQA version of the album from Tidal and increased the volume in an attempt to match the levels of the two versions. The sound seemed like it was uncompressed or unzipped to use a more computer related term. I don't mean uncompressed in the technical sense of file compression or dynamic range compression. Rather I mean it more like a flower blooming with pedals expanding from the center on all sides. The horn in the left channel was now very pleasant, with a smoothness but also appropriate decay that didn't memorialize the sound. This smoothness wasn't like a vacuum tube type of sound, but rather a rightness. The instruments sounded more like the real instruments I'm used to hearing during my trillion hours of listening to music as a career. Only joking about the trillion hours, but as serious as a heart attack about the terrific sound I heard through the dCS Network Bridge playing Nina Simone's I Put a Spell on You. 

     

    Again, this isn't a referendum on MQA. My comparisons were very unscientific, but gave me some information for a subsequent article that may be helpful to readers comparing MQA to standard PCM. Fortunately the Bridge enables the listener to decode the MQA material available to compare with standard PCM and make individual determinations per track, album, or even DAC. 

     

    I listened through the dCS Network Bridge connected to many DACs over the last several weeks. Of note was the absolutely stellar performance I was able to pull out of the Schiit Yggdrasil via its AES input being fed by the Bridge. Does it make sense to spend $4,750 on the Network Bridge to driver audio to a $2,399 DAC? It's obviously a question that can only be answered by each individual, but given the performance improvement I heard, I believe it's well worth the cost. Plus, the Yggdrasil is in the same boat as the Berkeley with respect to not playing native DSD content. The Network Bridge converts DSD to PCM on the fly in its FPGA for input in to the Yggy. No hiccups and a performance boost worthy of a DAC much more expensive than the sum of the two component's parts. 


    Because I used the Berkeley DAC for the majority of my listening through the Network Bridge, I had to test the HDCD encoded albums from Keith Johnson and Reference Recordings. Britten's The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra performed by Michael Stern's Kansas City Symphony, is a nice piece of music that's excellently recorded. This "track" has a dynamic range value of 25! It isn't for the car or an environment that isn't extremely quiet. The bombastic beginning of this 24/176.4 track (HDCD indicator illuminated on the DAC), had fantastic transients through the dCS Network Bridge. This may be the result of the dCS proprietary architecture that's used in Vivaldi, Rossini and yes the Network Bridge to minimize jitter. Nothing rounds the edges of transients and memorializes events quite like too much jitter. Fortunately there wasn't a hint of of either sonic issue through the Bridge. Continuing down the winding road of the 17 minute track, I heard very exquisite and very soft flutes floating in space, yet placed just left of center in the soundstage. Whether the track called for reproduction of gigantic transients and loud horns and drums or tiny little flutes or a soft wave of strings, the dCS Network Bridge delivered a transparent stream of audio to the DAC. 

     

     

    imagery.jpg

    click the image for detailed Network Bridge photos

     

     

     

     

    Conclusion 

     

    The dCS Network Bridge is a terrific product for both its raison d'etre and the bottom line of superb sound quality. Rather than obsoleting several generations of high performing legacy dCS DACs, the company created a product that bridged the gap between old and new. Thus, the Network Bridge. In addition to dCS owners, enthusiasts with countless numbers of legacy DACs from different manufacturers will also benefit from the Bridge. The Network Bridge breathes new life into new products as well. Connecting it to DACs from Berkeley Audio Design and Schiit Audio, among many others, accomplishes what these manufacturers don't on their own. That is provide a network interface, UPnP/DLNA, AirPlay, Spotify, Tidal, USB storage, DSD/DXD down sampling, MQA decoding, and more for delivery into the DAC. 
     

    The dCS Network Bridge is second to none with respect to the sound quality of products that I've heard in this category. From the smooth trumpet of Chet Baker and the lush baritone sax of Pepper Adams to the most dynamic symphonic recordings of Keith Johnson, the dCS Network Bridge delivers the music in all its glory. It was just as easy for me to get emotionally sucked into Nina Simone's 1965 album I Put a Spell On You as it was for me to get lost in Pearl Jam live from Fenway park at 24 bit / 96 kHz. Recording artists in a single room may be a vestige of the past, but the technique can produce sonic treasures of a bygone era. Through the dCS Network Bridge I heard amazing yet subtle decay from one channel to another as the sound of instruments bled into other microphones. 

     

    Listening through the Network Bridge for three straight hours over the weekend was a special treat that doesn't happen often and helped solidify the Bridge's standing at the top of the digital converter mountain. Experiences like this are what our wonderful hobby is all about. Getting closer to the music. CA Approved and C.A.S.H. Listed.

     


     


    Product Informtion:

    • Product - dCS, Network Bridge ($4,750)
    • Product Page - Link
    • Product User Manual - Link (PDF)

     

     

    Where to Buy:

     

    The Network Bridge is now available for purchase online through the dCS brand boutique on Superphonica1.

     

    dcs-brand-boutique.png

     


     

     

    Associated Music:

     

     

     

     

    Associated Equipment:

     

     

    1 Neither Superphonica nor Computer Audiophile receive a commission on the sale of goods through the dCS brand boutique.




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    7 minutes ago, JamesBardsley said:

    Hi Paul

    I think there is a dCS app that can find Tidal files and control the dCS NB from an iPad.

    I understand that they serve many different functions, but I currently have the budget to get one or the other.

    Very roughly they cost about the same as for Roon you need something like NUC plus endpoint - in fact, if one gets the Nucleus+ and lifetime fee, then Roon costs more than the dCS NB.

    For me SQ is much more important than file access systems, apps, magazine format, etc.

    So I'm comparing the SQ uplift of the dCS NB vs the SQ uplift of Roon.

    And as far I can tell, the probable SQ uplift of the dCS NB on my current system (which already sounds great) is very likely to be larger than the SQ uplift of getting Roon.

    Does that make sense now?

     

    I thought the dCS NetBridge was around $4,500?  If it is down around the $1k mark now, it is certainly a no brainer to go with! in fact, I need to buy one... :) 

     

    The actual uplift between something like a Rendu and the dCS is not very large at all, though there certainly is one, and that may be significant for you. (It also may not be.)  And of course, that assumes your DAC can accept USB input, which you must have for DSD and high rate PCM anyway. 

     

    I had the opportunity to hear a dCS NetBridge in early 2018 and it was very good indeed. It was in a very high end system owned by a friend in Dallas, and was connected via Ethernet. My friend eventually choose different hardware because he felt like his whole system would need to be dCS to match it. Take that with a grain of salt - he takes his system far more seriously than I do mine and has spent a lot more money than I have as well. I drive a Jeep, he garages his Bentley Flying Spur thingie. That kind of price difference. 🤪

     

    Also, Roon has just about zero effect on playback quality, it is all about getting the music to what is doing the playback. In this case, the dCS. Different jobs between the dCS and Roon or another network music server like JRMC or iTunes. Or even Tidal.

     

    I am anything but a Tidal fan myself, I much prefer Qobuz, and I prefer local storage and streaming over that.  How do you plan to access your existing music collection? 

     

    Yours, Paul

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Paul

     

    In the UK the dCS NB RRP is £3250, I think - which translates to around the figure in $ that you mention.

    I think the Nucleus is around £1400, IIRC, and the N+ is £2500. But then with Roon there's another $500 fee, plus a storage device, etc. I would guess a NUC or NAS is less, so if you have time and energy to sort it out Roon can indeed be done for £1k.

     

    I'm cery interested that you say 'Roon has just about zero effect on playback quality'. I've heard that said numerous times, but I've also heard many other people say it has a significant uplift on SQ.

     

    But surely it must have a lot more than zero effect on SQ, because it has room correction, and DSP, and MQA, and various other digital processing aspects which to my understanding are specifcally aimed at changing particualr qualities of the sound.

     

    cheers

    Jim

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, it does and it doesn't.  Basically, it will have no effect unless you layer in DSP or some kind of SRC intentionally. For example, I have Roon do a SRC when I want to listen to DSD on a Wavelength Proton, which maxes out at 24/96 PCM.  The conversion is seamless, and is targeted only to that particular DAC. That's a good "change". If I am listening to a 24/96, 24/88.2, 48, 04 44.1k file, there is no translation. 

     

    Most of the streaming from Roon arrives at the music playing machine bit perfect, with no modifications, even the same file type (AIFF, ALAC, FLAC, etc.) Just a perfect data transfer over the network. No change to the sound whatever. (Remember, Roon isn't really playing this, unless you have the Roon Core connected directly to a DAC.) 

     

    Yes, you can add in all sorts of VST like effects, including "correcting" the sound for specific headphones and so on, but that is not Roon changing the sound - that is the user changing the sound. :)

     

    As for the server, I would not by any means pick up an expensive Nucleus myself. Yes, it is running a nice optimized version of Linux, and yes, it looks very nice. But musically, it doesn't make any difference at all. Seriously - the Roon Server, unless it is connected to a DAC, is not musically important. Well, so long as it does its job, which is not all that hard. 

     

    I would pick up a right nice hunk of power, like an i7 Leonovo from Amazon, and stash it away in a closet or where ever you don't have to hear it. Add a pair of USB disks to it, a license for Roon, and you are out about $1200, including shipping.   

     

    I would stash it away in a back office, closet, or if you live in a mild climate, even in the garage. All you need is a network link to it.

     

    A couple easy peasy caveats - 

    •   Buy two external disks and tell Windows or a third party product to copy the files from your master to your secondary at least once per day. Or with a little effort, you can have Windows format them in such a way the second one mirrors the first automatically. 
       
    •   Be sure to grab a machine with a Windows Pro license, since this will let you remotely access the machine from a PC, a Mac, an iPad, etc. You won't need to put a keyboard, mouse, or monitor on it except for the first time you set it up. 
       

    At this point, you effectively have a nice Roon Nucleus - you will most likely control it using the Roon app unless you have to reboot the system or want to have it do something else. Like for example, share you music library over the network so you can use a laptop to add new music to your library. 

     

    Then put the money where it will do real good, on a nice network interface to your DAC, like the dCS, or a Rendu, or a SoTA, etc. That's really where the sonic difference is going to be. 

     

    P.S. Yes, I am saying that the music will sound exactly the same served from a $300 Amazon "renew" or a $2500 Nucleus, unless you connect a DAC directly to the server of course. 

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, Paul R said:

    you can have Windows format them in such a way the second one mirrors the first automatically

    Thanks Paul

    I have never heard Roon and have only done a couple of hours of research into what it is and whether to get it.

    I've been happy using the Naim app up to now.

    So that's a superb primer on how to do get Roon that I will use if I end up getting it.

    You should publish that on a site, or make a youtube video of it - you could call yourself Dr Roon, or the Roonulator, or something!

    I have to admit that the bit I quoted above is one of the reasons I don't get Roon - it sounds fiddly to set up and maintain.

    I see a huge amount of posts online of people who can't get their various machines to work together.

    I've just sold my cd and Rega Planar 3 and stripped my whole system down to Tidal into an all Naim system with a Cisco Catalyst 2960 switch.

    But I'm going to get a dCS NB now and work with the very plain dCS app first and see where that takes me.

    (I need to work out how to transfer the 1000's of Tidal tracks and albums and artists I've stored on the Naim app into the dCS app - of that's even possible??)

    I have about 400 CDs, but hardly anything that isn't already on Tidal.

    At the moment I'm still in honeymoon mode with Tidal, doing an extensive trawl/explore of new music, esp. old and new jazz.

    But at point I'll develop a small library of hi res rips/files for the things I really want to listen to most.

     

    One mystery remains, though - why do many people say that Roon gives them a significant uplift in SQ?

    thanks

    Jim

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     The key is to find what makes you happy of course. 

     

    The uplift in going to Roon is explained by the uplift from moving away from a single box to a streaming solution. Separating the two functions 

     

    A low powered player usually sounds great unless you ask it to be a server too. And a server always sounds a little worse than just a player, if you ask the server to be a player too that is. 

     

    Did not mean to sound like a Roon shill!  :)

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, lmitche said:

    If only this was true. Unfortunately it is not. Server quality and endpoint quality are equally important to SQ.

     

    I am not going to argue this point, here or elsewhere. Check out the "Novel" thread if you are interested in learning more.

     

    I am glad you do not wish to argue, because quite simply, you are wrong there. And yes, I have read the thread. People are welcome to believe what they will, this is a hobby after all. 

     

    Server quality in terms of fans, disks, Ethernet cards and so forth does not impact the quality reproduced by the endpoint. There are endless tests that provide very compelling evidence this is true. Including using a virtual server in Europe to service an endpoint in The US vs a local server 5 feet away from the endpoint. Nobody could tell the difference, guessing well within the parameters for random chance. That even includes thentransmissions being encoded and decoded by the IPSec VPN that connected the two locations.

     

    You are are welcome to believe whatever you want, and spend your money however you wish of course.  But the sever - assuming it is sufficiently powered and not broken of course - has no real effect at all upon sonic quality. Or at least, there is no compelling evidence it does or even can. 

     

    Let me point out that, for example, Tidal is using virtual severs hosted on the most electrically noisy computers you can imagine, geographically separated, and even running on virtual disks.  All in a hyper converged environment,  served over the Internet going through who  knows how many routers and media conversions to get to the endpoint player. 

     

    Yet people feel that the sound quality from Tidal is excellent. Or Qobuz which is probably grabbing material, in real time, from Europe. Even listening to Tidal or Qobuz through Roon, which adds another layer to the delivery.

     

    Still, it isn’t my money. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    59 minutes ago, Paul R said:

     

    I am glad you do not wish to argue, because quite simply, you are wrong there. And yes, I have read the thread. People are welcome to believe what they will, this is a hobby after all. 

     

    Server quality in terms of fans, disks, Ethernet cards and so forth does not impact the quality reproduced by the endpoint. There are endless tests that provide very compelling evidence this is true. Including using a virtual server in Europe to service an endpoint in The US vs a local server 5 feet away from the endpoint. Nobody could tell the difference, guessing well within the parameters for random chance. That even includes thentransmissions being encoded and decoded by the IPSec VPN that connected the two locations.

     

    You are are welcome to believe whatever you want, and spend your money however you wish of course.  But the sever - assuming it is sufficiently powered and not broken of course - has no real effect at all upon sonic quality. Or at least, there is no compelling evidence it does or even can. 

     

    Let me point out that, for example, Tidal is using virtual severs hosted on the most electrically noisy computers you can imagine, geographically separated, and even running on virtual disks.  All in a hyper converged environment,  served over the Internet going through who  knows how many routers and media conversions to get to the endpoint player. 

     

    Yet people feel that the sound quality from Tidal is excellent. Or Qobuz which is probably grabbing material, in real time, from Europe. Even listening to Tidal or Qobuz through Roon, which adds another layer to the delivery.

     

    Still, it isn’t my money. 

    Hi Paul - You touched on a couple things well. First, “it isn’t my money” is great. Many in this hobby could benefit from such an attitude. It’s similar to my who cares or what’s wrong with you editorial. Live and let listen. 

     

    Second, my experience both technically and in audio mirrors yours with respect to servers sending data over Ethernet. I’ve never heard a fan or ssd effect music sent to an endpoint. 

     

    That said, in the very popular thread Larry mentioned there are tons of great people hearing differences in all this stuff and enjoying the heck out of their journeys. 

     

    All I ask is that we give opinions and educate people in a respectful manner. No matter what those opinions are. 

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    18 hours ago, Paul R said:

     

    I am glad you do not wish to argue, because quite simply, you are wrong there. And yes, I have read the thread. People are welcome to believe what they will, this is a hobby after all. 

     

    Server quality in terms of fans, disks, Ethernet cards and so forth does not impact the quality reproduced by the endpoint. There are endless tests that provide very compelling evidence this is true. Including using a virtual server in Europe to service an endpoint in The US vs a local server 5 feet away from the endpoint. Nobody could tell the difference, guessing well within the parameters for random chance. That even includes thentransmissions being encoded and decoded by the IPSec VPN that connected the two locations.

     

    You are are welcome to believe whatever you want, and spend your money however you wish of course.  But the sever - assuming it is sufficiently powered and not broken of course - has no real effect at all upon sonic quality. Or at least, there is no compelling evidence it does or even can. 

     

    Let me point out that, for example, Tidal is using virtual severs hosted on the most electrically noisy computers you can imagine, geographically separated, and even running on virtual disks.  All in a hyper converged environment,  served over the Internet going through who  knows how many routers and media conversions to get to the endpoint player. 

     

    Yet people feel that the sound quality from Tidal is excellent. Or Qobuz which is probably grabbing material, in real time, from Europe. Even listening to Tidal or Qobuz through Roon, which adds another layer to the delivery.

     

    Still, it isn’t my money. 

    Hi Paul,

     

    Yes, several years ago I would have written the same arguments you make above. I wish it were true. And while I do not want to argue, I should at least qualify my statement. That is the reason for this additional posting here.

     

    In the case of a Roonserver and Roon endpoint, or Roonserver/Hqplayer NAA endpoint, extensive experience with many different systems in many people's homes, has proven that the quality of the server is equally as important as the quality of the endpoint.

     

    This is true with wired or wireless connections between server and endpoint.

     

    This is true regardless of whether the music source is remote such as tidal, or locally stored.

     

    Two sample observations:

     

    Software tweaks, such as disabling NUMA in the OS, raises SQ when implemented on both the server and endpoint sides. The quality impact is additive.

     

    Hardware power tweaks, such as powering a server based USB pcie card with a second or third level of regulation has a significant impact on image density.

     

    Many have observed that the impact of tweaks on the server side are of a different nature then those on the endpoint side, and that the sum of these combine to higher SQ overall.

     

    There may be something particular with Roon and it's transport layer RAATServer that creates a SQ dependency on the server side. Nevertheless the obtainable level of SQ is spectacular.

     

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, lmitche said:

    Hi Paul,

     

    Yes, several years ago I would have written the same arguments you make above. I wish it were true. And while I do not want to argue, I should at least qualify my statement. That is the reason for this additional posting here.

     

    In the case of a Roonserver and Roon endpoint, or Roonserver/Hqplayer NAA endpoint, extensive experience with many different systems in many people's homes, has proven that the quality of the server is equally as important as the quality of the endpoint.

     

    This is true with wired or wireless connections between server and endpoint.

     

    This is true regardless of whether the music source is remote such as tidal, or locally stored.

     

    Two sample observations:

     

    Software tweaks, such as disabling NUMA in the OS, raises SQ when implemented on both the server and endpoint sides. The quality impact is additive.

     

    Hardware power tweaks, such as powering a server based USB pcie card with a second or third level of regulation has a significant impact on image density.

     

    Many have observed that the impact of tweaks on the server side are of a different nature then those on the endpoint side, and that the sum of these combine to higher SQ overall.

     

    There may be something particular with Roon and it's transport layer RAATServer that creates a SQ dependency on the server side. Nevertheless the obtainable level of SQ is spectacular.

     

     

     

     

     

    We shall have to agree to disagree here. At least equal experience says that it is simply not true, beyond of course, things like fan noise if one locates the server where one can hear it. (Not recommended.) This is unfortunately one one of those subjects that can be fraught with potential fraud on the commercial side. How I wish it were not.

     

    However, if it floats your boat, then it is cool for you. I would expect any unscrupulous vendor to come out a far distant second in a contest with you. 😁

     

    Not trying to spoil anyone’s fun, but still, I think it is important to note that the many people who disagree with you have just as much right to their fun, are probably just as correct in their opinions, and audiophile snobbery, especially about the cost of gear, should have no place in the matter. 

     

    Disclaimer - I tend to have very expensive servers available to me,  run a lot of virtual Linux and Windows, and use Macs as workstations far more often than Windows. But I make use of less expensive machines for specific purposes all the time as appropriate, even more so over the last few years.. It means a bit more maintenance, but not all that much. 

     

    Just out of curiosity, how does that server optimization sound to you if you use a server in the cloud? I would think in theory at least, that would sound better,  remove any hardware issues, and perhaps even be cost effective, given the low transfer rates of serving up music.

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 minutes ago, Paul R said:

    Just out of curiosity, how does that server optimization sound to you if you use a server in the cloud? 

    Hi Paul,

     

    I haven't tried a cloud computing solution for audio outside of tidal and qobuz which I expect is not what you mean.

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You should try a cloud server.

     

    The best way I know to figure something out is to test the predictions of your belief or theory, and the closer they come to what you find out by doing, the more correct they are. Sometimes, you find out you are exactly right. Other times, one has to revise a hard held theory or belief, or even drop it for another theory that is more correct and gives better predictions. And of course, one has to be ready to believe what one hears, not just what one expects to hear. That can be trying at times, for everyone. Edison not withstanding. 

     

    Great examples abound all through our hobby; IMD in amplifiers, no benefit to high resolution audio, streaming from the internet at CD resolution is too expensive, etc. (That last one was one of mine I had to revise when high speed internet became ubiquitious. :) )

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 hours ago, lmitche said:

    the obtainable level of SQ is spectacular

    Can you say whether you think the SQ obtainble using Roon is better than spending the same funds on non-Roon ways of reproducing music?

    And if so, why that is?

    thanks

    Jim

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    55 minutes ago, JamesBardsley said:

    Can you say whether you think the SQ obtainble using Roon is better than spending the same funds on non-Roon ways of reproducing music?

    And if so, why that is?

    thanks

    Jim

    Hi Jim,

     

    I can't say that the same SQ isn't obtainable with non-Roon software. The Roon interface is so good that I won't give that up, and therefore have little recent experience with anything else to compare. I don't like to conjecture, can't say one way or another.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, lmitche said:

    I can't say that the same SQ isn't obtainable with non-Roon software. The Roon interface is so good that I won't give that up, and therefore have little recent experience with anything else to compare. I don't like to conjecture, can't say one way or another. 

    would this have to be an improvement in SQ via software?

    some people with roon say they don't notice much uplift in SQ at all

    could you get the same quantum of uplift in SQ via 'hardware'? (although at some level the distinction between hardware and software breaks down)

    one example of this is that I 've just bought the dCS Network Bridge (a bundle of hardware and software)

    if that gives an uplift in SQ when I plug it in, could that be as great or greater than the uplift I would have got by spending the same budget on Roon-playing hardware and the Roon software??

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, JamesBardsley said:

    would this have to be an improvement in SQ via software?

    some people with roon say they don't notice much uplift in SQ at all

    could you get the same quantum of uplift in SQ via 'hardware'? (although at some level the distinction between hardware and software breaks down)

    one example of this is that I 've just bought the dCS Network Bridge (a bundle of hardware and software)

    if that gives an uplift in SQ when I plug it in, could that be as great or greater than the uplift I would have got by spending the same budget on Roon-playing hardware and the Roon software??

     

    At the risk of poking in, let me suggest isn't isn't the Roon software so much as the architecture that separates player from sever that brings a hefty sonic uplift with it.  

     

    The big deal with Roon is that it is a very good interface and can handle just about any remote hardware there is - better for me at least, than JRMC, iTunes, Linn, LMS, or anything else I have tried. It is addictive, and so flexible that you begin choosing the system that is appropriate to the music, instead of choosing music that is appropriate for the system. It's a subversive paradigm shift. 

     

    Separating the hardware however, buys you a significant uplift in SQ in almost every case.  This is easily shown by putting the Roon core on the same system that is connected to the DAC. It will sound nice, but - nothing special. Separate them out, and all that "specialness" just happens. 

     

    For example, Bryston's players, the BDP-2 Atom based player at about $3600, and the new BDP-Pi (yep, it is really Pi based) at around $1400 both sound extraordinary when streaming from any source, including but not limited to Roon. The Linn players sound fantastic, even just streaming Tidal. (I have heard only the Majik and the Akurate .).

     

    The big surprise? Hook up a $240 AWOW SBC to a iFi iPower, run USB to a good DAC, and you have sound that clearly rivals the Bryston BDP-Pi, and isn't that far off from the BDP-2 either.  For under $300. The Bryston sounds better, but the sins of the cheap system are sins of omission, not commission, and probably the difference in Linux on the Brystons vs. Windows Pro on the AWOW. 

     

    That is shocking. It clearly suggests that separating the hardware server and player makes a huge difference. 

     

    If someone like Barrows directed his attention to improving the AWOW or Pi hardware, then you would have a wonderful result. Wait, that would be the Rendu's from Sonore, where even the ethernet connection has had some serious attention. Okay, the Rendu's sound better to me than the Brystons or the AWOWs, probably because of the attention to hardware and Linux. 😇 

     

    I'll shut up now. 

     

    -Paul

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    48 minutes ago, Paul R said:

    separating the hardware server and player makes a huge difference

    What do you mean by separating the server and player?

    - into different boxes?

    - increasing electrical isolation?

    - into different rooms?

    - as software objects?

     

    And how do the words 'server and player' relate to 'bridge, streamer, DAC' in your lexicon?

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 hours ago, JamesBardsley said:

    What do you mean by separating the server and player?

    - into different boxes?

    Yes, exactly, separated by the network. 

     

    Quote

    - increasing electrical isolation?

     

    To me, this is important in the player. That would be the box connected to the DAC, or the box that includes the DAC. In any case, whatever is electrically connected to the DAC via USA, S/PDIF,  TOSLink, or one of the more exotic connections. 

     

    Quote

    - into different rooms?

     

    That's a user chose. If you have a super quiet server, it does not really matter I suppose. Obviously, my opinion is the spending a lot of money on the server is not really the most effective way to boost sound quality, so I think of servers as being big noisy brutes. 

     

    Quote

    - as software objects?

     

    Eh, this is a tricky question. If you happen to use the same software for both the client and the server, there is little or no separation by software objects. Logical separation, yes.  

     

    Quote

    And how do the words 'server and player' relate to 'bridge, streamer, DAC' in your lexicon?

     

     

    Server - a machine whose purpose is to store music data files, and provide them to clients in a timely and consistent manner. I also tend to want to put the indexing, metadata, and backup chores on to a centralized machine (the server).  Providing files is commonly done over a network. 

     

    Player - a machine whose purpose is to accept music files (commonly over a network)  as presented and send those files in a very clean, time ordered stream to a DAC. A player may also have other tasks, such as volume control, interrogating the DAC, and other similar tasks. By itself, it generally has no music to play. 

     

    Bridge - this is a device whose purpose is nothing more than to convert one format to another. Typically, we use a wireless "bridge" to connect wireless clients to a wired network, even if that entire network exists only inside a router. In some cases, a "player" also functions as a bridge, converting a network transmission to say, USB for a DAC. The difference is that the player is more than just a bridge. We typically call players "endpoints" these days to avoid the confusion. 

     

    Streamer - well technically a "streamer" is a device that streams music to a client (player). But the definition has gotten all loosey goosey over the past few years. Now people call endpoints streamers, because they "stream" content from a server, like Tidal. I have an engineer's brain, which recognizes messy definitions like this, but tends to shy away from them. 

     

    DAC - a Digital to Analog Converter accepts digital files and converts them to analog voltages. The key is to remember your music isn't music until the DAC processes it. This is why it doesn't make much of any difference about how you "treat" the data file on a server. It's really nothing more than a data file, no more special than a word processing document or a spreadsheet. You can't hurt it, degrade it, or corrupt it with normal operations. (*You can  if your computer breaks, which is backups are so important). You can copy a digital file hundreds of thousands of times, and there will be zero degradation.  It will have exactly the same data, exactly the same ones and zeros, everything. If you copy a word-processing file back and forth a few hundred thousands times, the 100,001th copy will still have exactly the same characters in it, in exactly the same order. 

     

    I say that to point out when that digital file hits the DAC, pretty much all hell can break loose. Electrical noise from the player can sneak down a USB line. USB cables should *not* make a difference in the sound, not at all - but they do. DACs should, in theory, sound exactly the same. They don't. DACs are crazy sensitive to their inputs. If the DAC happens to be attached to the server - electrically attached -  then there are all kinds of electrical interference that somehow magically appear in the DAC's input. Good DACs filter that out, but somehow, it just never seems to sound quite as good as not having the interference in the first place. 

     

     

    Yours,

    -Paul 

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, Paul R said:

    Server - a machine whose purpose is to store music data files, and provide them to clients in a timely and consistent manner. I also tend to want to put the indexing, metadata, and backup chores on to a centralized machine (the server).  Providing files is commonly done over a network. 

     

    Player - a machine whose purpose is to accept music files (commonly over a network)  as presented and send those files in a very clean, time ordered stream to a DAC. A player may also have other tasks, such as volume control, interrogating the DAC, and other similar tasks. By itself, it generally has no music to play.  

     

    Bridge - this is a device whose purpose is nothing more than to convert one format to another. Typically, we use a wireless "bridge" to connect wireless clients to a wired network, even if that entire network exists only inside a router. In some cases, a "player" also functions as a bridge, converting a network transmission to say, USB for a DAC. The difference is that the player is more than just a bridge. We typically call players "endpoints" these days to avoid the confusion

     

    Streamer - well technically a "streamer" is a device that streams music to a client (player). But the definition has gotten all loosey goosey over the past few years. Now people call endpoints streamers, because they "stream" content from a server, like Tidal. I have an engineer's brain, which recognizes messy definitions like this, but tends to shy away from them.  

    Hey - thanks Paul. That's very helpful.

    So by your definitions, the dCS (Data Conversion Systems) Network Bridge is not a bridge - because it does more than mere bridging or data conversion from one format to another.

    It's a player (that includes a bridge function). (I'm not sure whether it does volume control or not - but I'd prefer to do that in the preamp in the 272 if possible.)

    I currently have no NAS or local store, hence no server (except an old Walkman USB pen drive that sounds rubbish when you stick it in the USB slot in the front of the 272 with a hi res copy of Bitches Brew on it).

    The server is Tidal's server somewhere on the net.

    The signals also go via the ISP router and then the Cisco Catalyst 2960 switch in my home network. These I suppose also class as bridges.

    I pick up the dCS Network Bridge and bring it home tomorrow.

    So when I plug it in I'm hoping that it sounds better than the already very nice sounding player in my Naim 272 because:

    1. it should have even better ability to process the files than the player in the 272 (if one uses price as a very rough proxy for quality)

    2. it's in a separate box so the player and DAC functions should be better isolated electrically (the dCS NB is carefully designed and built to minimise EM noise - I think even more so than the older 272) - and because there will be less processing in fewer circuits of the 272 there should be less electrical noise flying around

    3. it transcodes FLAC files from Tidal to WAV, which I think the 272 DAC likes to receive, taking processing pressure off the 272 which has older and less powerful processing power

    4. It does an MQA unfold which may or may not sound better (I've never heard MQA) but should process the Tidal Masters files so I can hear them in higher res form than I currently do

     

    anyway, that's the theory as I understand it (as a non-engineer).................

     

    cheers

    Jim

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, Paul R said:

    DACs are crazy sensitive to their inputs.

    Therefore the better the player, the better the inputs to the DAC.

    So - and this may be a trite Q - but could one say that the player is more important than the DAC?

    i.e. that 'hell' is less likely to break loose in the DAC if it's getting a nice clean and orderly and very well timed signals from the player?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, JamesBardsley said:

    Therefore the better the player, the better the inputs to the DAC.

    So - and this may be a trite Q - but could one say that the player is more important than the DAC?

    i.e. that 'hell' is less likely to break loose in the DAC if it's getting a nice clean and orderly and very well timed signals from the player?

     

    That is pretty much my experience - there are exceptions of course. Most DACs can do a much better job than one would think, if you clean up their input. But still, a better DAC has more potential to sound better.  I would bet your 272 has a nice surprise coming...

     

    I expect you you are going to get a really nice SQ jump tomorrow!! 😉

     

    Paul

     

    p.s.  Your “NAS” right now is Tidal, or at least you can look at it that way. And yep, at least initially, people seem to really like the sound of MQA. Whether that proves true over time is a question. When you get the chance, try some DSD music. I actually transcode Redbook to DSD sometimes because I Ike the sound, and my DACs like it even better.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

     

     I would bet your 272 has a nice surprise coming... I expect you you are going to get a really nice SQ jump tomorrow!! 😉

     

    ...When you get the chance, try some DSD music. I actually transcode Redbook to DSD sometimes because I Ike the sound, and my DACs like it even better.

    Thanks Paul - I'll let you know how it goes.

    Yes, I'm interested in DSD.

    Paul McGowan of PS Audio is v keen on it.

    Do you use the DSP fundtions of Roon to transcode Redbook to DSD?

    How could that be done without Roon? Just by buying DSD discs or files?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    21 minutes ago, JamesBardsley said:

    Thanks Paul - I'll let you know how it goes.

    Yes, I'm interested in DSD.

    Paul McGowan of PS Audio is v keen on it.

    Do you use the DSP fundtions of Roon to transcode Redbook to DSD?

    How could that be done without Roon? Just by buying DSD discs or files?

     

    Yep. If your DAC is DSD capable, then you can setup a Roon endpoint that will Transcode everything to DSD or high rate PCM with just a few clicks. And alternatively, if you have DSD music, it will play it on non-DSD DACs by transcoding it to PCM. 

     

    You can can do that with a lot of different software that supports DSD.  J. River Media Center is a favorite, and there about a dozen others.  You can also play DSD files directly without transcoding. The most common source, besides online sellers like Native DSD, is SACD discs. The SACD part is DSD. Guess that is what makes it super! 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 4/24/2019 at 5:55 PM, JamesBardsley said:

     I would bet your 272 has a nice surprise coming... I expect you you are going to get a really nice SQ jump tomorrow!! 😉

    Holy Mackerel!

    You were spot on.

    The Network Bridge has made a big uplift in the sound.

    Every track I've listened to (about 40 tracks I know well) sounds much better - as good as I've ever heard them.

    Bigger soundstage, better separation, cleaner sound.

    But retaining the Naim musicality that I love.

    e.g. Max Roach 'The Drum Also Waltzes' - I can hear the physical relationships between the drums and cymbals far better - and each drum and cymbal is crystal clear in itself.

    'Miles Beyond' by the Mahavishnu Orchestra - so clean and yet it rocks even more than usual too.

    Then my 6 year old son came in - he said it's miles better - listened to Get Lucky by Daft Punk - such a fuller and better sound.

    Then my 12 year old daughter came in and played a track by Drake (not Nick Drake) - there was a wierd and amazing twisting bass effect that made it sound like I've got a sub-woofer.

    The speakers are into another dimension.

    Now all I need is to wire in a dedicated hifi radial and I'm done.

    Roon, I'm afraid, is toast for me for the foreseeable future.

    The dCS app picked up all my favourites and playlists too.

    Huge thanks to everyone on this thread who encouraged to do buy the dCS Network Bridge.

    cheers!

    Jim

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    4 hours ago, JamesBardsley said:

    Holy Mackerel!

    You were spot on.

    The Network Bridge has made a big uplift in the sound.

    Every track I've listened to (about 40 tracks I know well) sounds much better - as good as I've ever heard them.

    Bigger soundstage, better separation, cleaner sound.

    But retaining the Naim musicality that I love.

    e.g. Max Roach 'The Drum Also Waltzes' - I can hear the physical relationships between the drums and cymbals far better - and each drum and cymbal is crystal clear in itself.

    'Miles Beyond' by the Mahavishnu Orchestra - so clean and yet it rocks even more than usual too.

    Then my 6 year old son came in - he said it's miles better - listened to Get Lucky by Daft Punk - such a fuller and better sound.

    Then my 12 year old daughter came in and played a track by Drake (not Nick Drake) - there was a wierd and amazing twisting bass effect that made it sound like I've got a sub-woofer.

    The speakers are into another dimension.

    Now all I need is to wire in a dedicated hifi radial and I'm done.

    Roon, I'm afraid, is toast for me for the foreseeable future.

    The dCS app picked up all my favourites and playlists too.

    Huge thanks to everyone on this thread who encouraged to do buy the dCS Network Bridge.

    cheers!

    Jim

     

    That's what it is all about friend!  Enjoy!

     

    -Paul 

     

    P.S.  Wait till you hear DSD. :) 

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...