Article: dCS Network Bridge Review

[JamesBardsley]

15 minutes ago, Paul R said:

Umm- your question confuses me. The dCS is not a competitor for Roon, it is a Roon “endpoint” - like a Rendu, or a computer running the Roon Client. In fact, the dCS is a computer.

 

You will still need Roon, or AirPlay, or one of the various UPnP servers to send music to it.  

 

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?

[Paul R]

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

[JamesBardsley]

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

[Paul R]

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. 

 

[JamesBardsley]

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

 

[Paul R]

 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!  

 

[lmitche]

11 hours ago, Paul R said:

Seriously - the Roon Server, unless it is connected to a DAC, is not musically important.

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.

[Paul R]

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

 

 

[lmitche]

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.

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

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.

 

 

[lmitche]

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.

 

 

[Paul R]

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.  )

[JamesBardsley]

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

[lmitche]

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.

[JamesBardsley]

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??

[Paul R]

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

[JamesBardsley]

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?

 

[Paul R]

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 

 

 

[JamesBardsley]

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

[JamesBardsley]

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?

[Paul R]

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.

[JamesBardsley]

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?

[Paul R]

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! 

[JamesBardsley]

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