Dcs vivaldi or rossini dac

[Vincent1234]

For those using dCS Vivaldi or Rossini DAC's this is the answer I received just now from dCS to my question when we can expect these devices to be able to fully decode MQA:

"We are working on an MQA solution, but I do not have a date on which we will be adding this feature."

So, we will need to be a little patient..

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Vincent1234]

For those using dCS Vivaldi or Rossini DAC's this is the answer I received just now from dCS to my question when we can expect these devices to be able to fully decode MQA:

"We are working on an MQA solution, but I do not have a date on which we will be adding this feature."

So, we will need to be a little patient..

 

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

For those interested in playing MQA via their dCS devices: last word from dCS is that recent results using full software decoding of MQA (on Rossini and Vivaldi) were not up to the standards they hoped for. This could mean they will switch to a hardware solution after all, although they can fully program their DAC's by software. I'm not sure if I would be willing to pay additionally for hardware MQA decoding myself. On the other hand one cannot blame dCS to strive for the best SQ possible, which suits their status.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[miguelito]

Well, that's an easy one. [emoji4] MQA as well as Roon support for Rossini (via firmware only) are expected already end of this month! See: http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/product-support/faq/ The FAQ is actually lagging behind, but I heard the upcoming update from my dealer.

I've been passively looking for an upgrade and the Rossini is on my list. However, I have pulled back a bit given things seem to be in flux regarding MQA and Roon support.

 

What I honestly don't get is why anyone would not include Roon support in a DAC with a network interface and/or what is taking so long to get MQA implemented. Four months after your post and still both are not there (at least as far as I can tell). And this is across the board with most manufacturers.

[Vincent1234]

I've been passively looking for an upgrade and the Rossini is on my list. However, I have pulled back a bit given things seem to be in flux regarding MQA and Roon support.

 

What I honestly don't get is why anyone would not include Roon support in a DAC with a network interface and/or what is taking so long to get MQA implemented. Four months after your post and still both are not there (at least as far as I can tell). And this is across the board with most manufacturers.

Not true, Roon is there! MQA unfortunately not yet.

 

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Samuel T Cogley]

I've been passively looking for an upgrade and the Rossini is on my list. However, I have pulled back a bit given things seem to be in flux regarding MQA and Roon support.

 

What I honestly don't get is why anyone would not include Roon support in a DAC with a network interface and/or what is taking so long to get MQA implemented. Four months after your post and still both are not there (at least as far as I can tell). And this is across the board with most manufacturers.

 

Wild guess: MQA themselves provided code to Tidal to implement software decoding in the desktop apps. This code was optimized for Intel CPUs and getting it to work efficiently on ARM processors is turning out to be much harder than MQA anticipated. This is likely the reason why Audioquest has not released the MQA firmware update for their Dragonflys: those require upstream "MQA Core" software decoding. Upsampling can be a heavy lift for a CPU. Again, this is utterly uninformed speculation.

[miguelito]

Wild guess: MQA themselves provided code to Tidal to implement software decoding in the desktop apps. This code was optimized for Intel CPUs and getting it to work efficiently on ARM processors is turning out to be much harder than MQA anticipated. This is likely the reason why Audioquest has not released the MQA firmware update for their Dragonflys: those require upstream "MQA Core" software decoding. Upsampling can be a heavy lift for a CPU. Again, this is utterly uninformed speculation.

Hmmm...

Possible... But I doubt that a processor that can do upsampling and that is programmable (ie FPGA and the like) has a problem with MQA. Delays I am guessing are more of another nature. For example, I vaguely recall someone from PS Audio saying that MQA (the company) would not be ok with them changing their upsampling algos without revalidating MQA.

 

 

As for the Dragonfly, you would've thought that all the fanfare meant that they already had it working. The final stage of MQA "rendering" seems to be the setting of parameters in upsampling filters, and I understand the DAC in the Dragonfly's allows for such thing, so all the receiver chip would need to do is identify the incoming 88 or 96 PCM stream, interpret the upsampling flags, and pass them on to the ESS DAC. That doesn't seem like rocket science if this interpretation of the rendering stage is correct.

[audioman321]

Hi All,  Please allow me to chime in. 

 

I have owned to spend significant time with most of the dCS products over the years.

 

I previously owned a Delius with a grey Purcell.  I currently own a Elgar Plus and a Purcell with DSD.  I don't own a dCS clock because the Verona just can't compete with third party brands like Antelope.  I run the Antelope Pure 2 for USB conversion and as a master clock.  The Antelope was a huge upgrade for the other two and made them very similar to the Scarlatti stack in terms of sound quality.

 

I have spend hours of demo time with the Scarlatti and Puccini.  Both are an improvement on the older digital volume control of the Elgar or Delius, but in terms of sound quality you will hear much the same characteristics and in no way was it worth the upgrade.  Looking inside both you get the feeling that they made the Scarlatti because components were becoming end of life and they needed to refresh.

 

I've listened to both the Vivaldi and Rossini for some time and I'm going to purchase a Rossini when one comes available used without the clock.  The Vivaldi is excellent, but I don't see it as the several times better that some here have said.  The Rossini has upsampling built in which is where it should be.  There's no reason to sell you another box, other than generating revenue.  It annoys me on the Vivaldi that they put the network connection on the upsampler.  That just says to me that they were worried with HQ audio files nobody would buy an upsampler. 

 

I didn't do a with and without clock demo, but it's disappointing that so many are reporting improvements with the clock as this means that they included an inferior unit with the stock Rossini.  There's no reason an outboard clock would be any better, and the proof of this is the Vivaldi One.  If I wind up needing a clock, I will buy another Antelope.  There's no way I will spend dCS money for a clock I can't re-calibrate myself. ( I have a Rb. Feq. Std.)

 

The sound is definitely different between the current generation and the previous generations.  The sound is more fluid and less hard etched.  The volume control is leaps and bounds better than on my older hardware.

 

It would be really interesting to a comparison between the three generations of upsamplers to see if there's any difference.  I have my doubts....