Article: First Listen And A Visit To dCS For The New Bartok

[AMP]

8 minutes ago, matthias said:

But the bridge is better than the streaming board in the Rossini:

 

No, it's not.

 

There is absolutely no reason to use a Bridge with a Rossini or Bartok. There will be no performance gains and some control functionality will be lost.

[AMP]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

With the additional Bridge you have a complete separate PS and a higher performing processor with wifi.

 

Makes no difference. The CPU on the bridge has the ability to operate at a slightly higher clock frequency, but idle CPU cycles are idle CPU cycles. No impact on sound quality. The separate power supply has negligible impact in this particular application. The power supply in the Bartok is considerably more robust than what's in the bridge.

 

Wi-Fi isn't enabled in the bridge and likely won't be.

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why would a separate power supply, faster processor that's unneeded in the DACs, WiFi, and a conversion to AES or SPDIF before hitting the DAC be beneficial?

 

It's not. It's adding complexity for the sake of adding complexity. No real gains, some losses, and considerably more money. We'd love to sell more Bridges, but we aren't going to lie to prospective customers and endorse this type of configuration. It's silly.

[AMP]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Okay, I'll rephrase. It would be interesting to hear someone who auditions the Bartok and Rossini and comments on the SQ difference, and how much.

 

It's not an especially valid comparison right now as Rossini is due for an update which will have a significant impact on its sonic performance.

[AMP]

14 minutes ago, matthias said:

What exactly are the hardware differences between Bartok and Rossini?

 

Chris covered it in his write-up. In terms of hardware Bartok has a less complex power supply and a less complex chassis.

 

The real difference will be in the software. As our DAC architecture is software-defined we can realize performance gains through a simple firmware update. In the case of Bartok the software is very similar to Rossini as it stands today. Rossini will get an update to apply some of the algorithms from Vivaldi.

[AMP]

2 hours ago, stevebythebay said:

From a sonic perspective are the Rossini and Vivaldi very different today? 

 

Yes.

 

2 hours ago, stevebythebay said:

Or are there simply algorithms and/or additional hardware features of a nature that the Vivaldi is, or can exceed the Rossini going forward?

 

Not sure I understand the wording of your question. From a hardware architecture the Vivaldi is quite a bit different than the Rossini and quite a bit more advanced in terms of functional multiprocessing. The software is quite different as well. The difference between the two isn't subtle and although the Rossini will be getting closer in the near future, the Vivaldi will always be "better." (both subjectively and in terms of measured performance)

 

2 hours ago, stevebythebay said:

I'd expect the Vivaldi would be replaced in the product line much sooner than the Rossini, based on age when each was released.  Though that may still be years in the future.

 

The Vivaldi platform still has a lot of life left in it. Someday it will get replaced and as we did with Scarlatti we'll be sure to take care of those people who made an investment in Vivaldi.

[AMP]

2 hours ago, crion said:

Hello AMP, is that impedance spec for the headphones written in stone? Not accepting lower impedance almost make me feel the headphone output is an afterthought but actually the initial reason for me looking at the product.

 

This question came up on another site and our director of product development provided a very thorough response which I'll include below.

 

As for the headphone section being an afterthought I can assure you that couldn't be farther from the truth. This product was designed as a headphone DAC from day one. We're occasionally overly conservative in our specs, but the intention was always to have Bartok capable of supporting whatever headphones the customer preferred. Take your favorite pair to a dealer and have a listen for yourself.

 

Here is the technical explanation from our director of product development:

 

The Bartok headphone amplifier is heavily optimised for operation into loads of 30 Ohms or greater, but this doesn’t mean that it won’t operate linearly into lower impedances.  As the amplifier operates in Class A for all practical purposes, the maximum power dissipation in the output stage is when the amplifier is idle.  Driving the amplifier diverts this power dissipation away from the output stage and into the load.  As a result, the amplifier is quite tolerant of lower than rated loads.  Into very low impedances (let’s say less than 8 Ohms), and at high output levels, there will be an increase in output stage dissipation, distortion will increase a little, and operation may move away from Class A at very high drive- which we define as levels that would not be encountered in any practical situation, i.e. levels that would be hazardous to both ears and headphones!