Article: dCS Network Bridge Review

[Confused]

A great review, informative and I certainly enjoyed reading it.  @The Computer Audiophile- One comment you made in the review, "The dCS Network Bridge is second to none with respect to the sound quality of products that I've heard in this category".  Maybe you would rather not say, but what other products have you heard and consider to be in this category?  The obvious candidates for me include products from SOtM, Sonore, Bricasti, Antipodes and Auralic.

 

Picking up on @jay 's comment, I own the SOtM "bundle".  It is superb, but it does leave me with a few niggling doubts as to as it the best choice for my system.  My local dealer stocks the Network Bridge, so I am tempted to borrow this for comparison.  This will not be anytime soon though, I am too busy to do this one justice at the moment.  If I do ever get 'round to trying it, I will of course post my observations.  @jay - One other point of note here, the SOtM, Sonore and Antipodes products are compatible with HQPlayer, the Network Bridge is not.

[Confused]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

HQP would have to be used with Roon to be compatible with the Bridge. 

When you run Roon with HQPlayer, the output is NAA, not RAAT.  So basically Roon outputs to HQPlayer, and then HQPlayer outputs NAA to whatever your endpoint is.  So unless I am missing something here, the Network Bridge is not compatible with HQPlayer, with or without Roon.

[Confused]

9 hours ago, AMP said:

 

Reclocking is one of those words that is so overused in marketing fluff that it's tough to determine what it actually means. In fact, it's a made-up word that has no meaning at all

 

Network data (audio or otherwise) is transmitted asynchronously which by definition means that it is not dependent on any clocking reference that corresponds to any other clock. "Clocking" in the digital audio sense is only an applicable term when we're talking about synchronous transfer mechanisms like AES, SPDIF, SDIF, TOS, I2S, etc. While the physical layer of Ethernet relies on an oscillator to time pulses on the wire, that clock has no relation whatsoever to the clock in the DAC.

 

Furthermore, all network streaming devices (really all network devices) make use of memory buffers to temporarily hold the data packets and either re-packetize them for transfer back over the network or hold them for reassembly. In the case of a streaming device there's a memory buffer that's filled to a safe level from the network and metered out according to the audio clock rate. In the case of the network bridge the clock reference used to roll data out of that buffer is either one of the internal oscillators or an external word clock.

 

The "clock" in the audio sense doesn't come into play until the data is moved out of the network buffer an is prepared for transmission to the DAC. At that point it becomes synchronous, is processed in real-time, and the clock becomes incredibly important.

 

The vast majority of the "reclockers" on the market (network or otherwise) are simple store-and-forward buffers. Nothing magic about them and, frankly, they're likely to do more harm than good. Remember, you can never make bit-perfect data more perfect, but you can sure as hell screw it up!

This is interesting and very relevant to my current situation.  I have a dealer that is happy to lend me their demo Network Bridge for a few days next month.  I already own a Mutec REF10 and MC3+USB (probably one of the better "store and forward" clock devices)

 

Anyway, obviously I want to demo the NB in the best possible way that I can.  It occurs to me that there are different ways I could configure my set-up. 

 

1. I could use the REF10 to provide the reference to the MC3+USB, then simply run the system Ethernet to the NB, NB AES3 to the Referenced MC3+USB, MC3+USB AES3 to my Devialet amp.

 

2. I could use the REF10 to provide the reference to the MC3+USB, and then use the MC3+USB to provide a 48kHz word clock to the NB.  I could then run Roon up-sampling everything to 192kHz to the NB, and connect the NB direct to the Devialet via AES3.  (Also, in time I could add an additional MC3 to provide both 44.1 and 48kHz word clock signals to the NB)

 

I see 1) having the advantage of only requiring one external clock connection compared to two external clock connections for 2)

 

I see 2 as having the advantage of a more direct signal path to the Devialet.

 

Any idea which is best from a technical perspective?  Or is it a case of try it and see?

 

Other options would be to get the MC3+USB to provide a word clock to the NB, and feed the NB's AES3 feed through the referenced MC3+USB.  Maybe too radical or problematic?  A final option would be to run the NB without the Mutec kit, nice and simple.

 

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.