PS Audio Bridge

[timequest]

Ziggy:

 

For me, since I no longer have any issues playing my files via my Bridge (Redbook up to 24/192), and since my music sounds spectacular, your harsh words on an open form against a truly great company are suspect to say the least.

 

Please tell the readers here how much experience you have with the Bridge...??

 

[ziggyzack]

none, wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

 

[timequest]

None...? Are you serious? You go on a public forum and bash a company and their product, of which you have no experience? Why would you do that Ziggy? Really...?

 

Chris, I've read some excellent things about you from Paul McGowan. I hate to see such blatantly absurd behavior on your site here at the expense of such a great person and organization. I realize that you have very little oversight though. I also know that you have integrity, which is more than I can say for someone who would make broad comments about something they have no firsthand knowledge of.

 

Weak....very, very weak...

 

 

 

[mozartrules]

I have been happy with my PWD + Bridge. Before eLyric I did have issues with getting things to work, but things have been good once I installed eLyric on the server. The iPhone app isn't that great but I was very happy when they released the iPad app. The iPad app has some bugs but they don't get in the way of my listening.

 

I run a simple wired 100Mb network from server (admittedly bigger than what most people use - Sandy Bridge 2600K with 16Gb RAM - but that is probably not relevant).

 

Redbook and the couple of 24/192 and 24/96 files I have all sound great running the PWD into Pass Aleph 30 feeding Quad 2805. I am thrilled with the sound and accept the software issues (I do programming at work and life is tough on the bleeding edge).

 

[Priaptor]

Ziggy,

 

That is really poor form. Give me a break.

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

I take your point; perhaps I should have said something along the lines of...

"Sometimes there can be issues using basic Network components especially ISP supplied routers. These can be avoided / eliminated by adding a relatively cheap switch from Linksys or Netgear (amongst others). This should cost between £50 and £200"

 

Eloise

 

PS. No where in my original post suggesting looking at network as being a potential source of problems did I say these were Linn suggestions / requirements. I actually have read these suggestions coming from Naim.

 

PPS. The specifying of a Gigabit switch (NOT router) is due to the fact that 100MBPS switches are virtually obsolete. The brand names I mention are general recommendations based on good price/performance ratio.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Ziggy - You're certainly good at rubbing everyone the wrong way. It seems like most of your posts are either contrarian, in support of Linn, or bashing other manufacturers. At Computer Audiophile this type of attitude causes problems with people looking to increase enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. People don't visit CA to give themselves a headache or to read about how wrong they must be according to someone who has by his own admission no experience with a product he bashes.

 

I alway encourage viewpoints from all sides, but only when done in an adult nonconfrontational manner. You can rock the boat all you want but not at the expense of everyone else.

 

 

 

[timequest]

Now that's class.

 

No wonder Chris has such a great reputation within the industry.

 

[Priaptor]

This one.

 

[timequest]

Priaptor:

 

Chris is a class act. For the most part, so are all the forum members.

 

Since I don’t really have a traditional computer audio setup, I don’t have that much to offer the forum.

 

I happen to believe that network audio is the future of music servers, but with all of the truly excellent software and hardware being developed and made available to the computer audiophile, it’s hard to say for certain.

 

Hats off to the likes of Gordon Rankin at Wavelength and all the other computer audio gurus.

 

_Ben

 

 

[ziggyzack]

just wanted to emphasise that there's nothing abount UPnP AV which needs anything other than bog-standard consumer network gear - a fact that can get lost in a tweaker's paradise...

 

ZZ

 

[Audio_ELF]

@ZZ...

 

My point (I was making badly) was that IF a streamer setup has problems then some good quality but not particularly expensive networking equipment can solve a lot of problems. People who buy £3,000 plus streamers then bulk at spending £100 on a switch are (IMO) making false economies.

 

Eloise

 

[barrows]

I disagree with your perspective that you do not have much to offer. In fact, precisely because those using networked solutions are in the minority here, I think you have much to offer. Certainly those using USB, Firewire, servers via SPDIF or I2S and those using networked solutions are all Computer Audiophiles.

Additionally, there is much discussion here about music releases (high resolution in particular) which we can all participate in.

Personally a networked solution is not right for me, but I still like to hear of people's experience with them-as you mention, networked computer audio is likely to become the largest most popular way of getting the files to the DAC in the future, and sharing your experiences now coud be very helpful to those who are considering going this route in the future. Thanks for your contribution!

 

[timequest]

Thank you Barrows. Spoken like a true gentleman, just as you always did when I corresponded with you during your days at PS Audio.

 

I have always valued your opinions. What is it that you prefer about the more “traditional” USB “computer” audio compared to network audio? I will gravitate to whatever protocol provides the best sound quality. Right now, I believe the very best of the two protocols are on par with each other (in regard to SQ). What are your feelings on this subject?

 

Thanks.

 

_Ben

 

 

[ziggyzack]

You're certainly good at rubbing everyone the wrong way. It seems like most of your posts are either contrarian, in support of Linn, or bashing other manufacturers. At Computer Audiophile this type of attitude causes problems with people looking to increase enjoyment of this wonderful hobby. People don't visit CA to give themselves a headache or to read about how wrong they must be according to someone who has by his own admission no experience with a product he bashes.

 

No Chris, sorry, you're off base. A couple of Bridge owners have been rubbed up the wrong way - that's no surprise, they already were rubbed up the wrong way by me on the PSAudio forum for being critical of PSA. Criticise at your peril with Timequest - he has his head so far up Paul McGowan's arse, it makes

look like a prototype.

 

I have made no comments on the SQ of the PWD+Bridge, as I don't own it and have never heard it - I've heard the PWT+PWD demoed at a hifi show, that's it. But I don't need to own it to bring up issues acknowledged by PSA on their own forum.

 

As you know, I'm keen on UPnP AV, and I've made comments on here some time ago about looking forwards to the emergence of the Bridge. Unfortunately, while PS fans are entranced, I'm not. I spent a fair amount of time on the PSA forum, and have followed their progress. I would have liked them to do well - as I sometimes repeat, the more good, usable high res players there are out there, the better the chance of high res music taking off - but it's been amateurish. There have been a mass of complaints about drop-outs, PSA did acknowledge that it was not network related, they did end up blaming the flac codec and saying they would recode it, it has been months since that happened, and since it happened, users have claimed to experience 'microskips' as well as drop-outs.

 

One problem with the PWD + bridge is that it has been put together from some (not quite) off the shelf components, for example the player software is a linux version of VLC. Linux VLC doesn't do gapless. Paul McGowan originally didn't see the need for gapless, and at one point suggested users tag their gapless albums as gapless. This was way after I'd contacted him to suggest he look into using the Linn UPnP AV extensions, which are open source and freely available, and he warmly replied 'we know how to handle this'. Unfortunately, with the linux VLC player having been bought in, and no accommodation for gapless in the original design, the developer who is tasked with retrofitting gapless must be having a torrid time. When you think of all the buffer control that you have to exert to maintain a seamless audio stream, and the compartmentalisation of PSA's design approach, it's no wonder gapless still hasn't been delivered despite a promise that it would be in January.

 

And PMcG has rubbed me up the wrong way by blaming every other piece in the puzzle - be it music servers, networks, file formats, whatever - on his forum. The solution to all problems was: wait for our control point software (based on PlugPlayer), wait for our server software, all the others are flawed - blaming the very products that he has been inspired to ape. He's toned it down somewhat, after hearing complaints. But let's not forget that he said 'Plus, TMM [music manager software] communicates choices people make to our servers (anonymously of course) and when we see an album or know of an album that is gapless, we will check the box for you when you scan your library into the TMM database. Eventually, we’ll have all this automated when enough people install TMM. What am I missing?' It's cuckoo! His position has since moved on, but this is what the protagonist of the bridge thought back in December, well after it had been released.

 

So, if you are a huge fan of PSA and don't mind paying full price for a product which is sometimes accidentally described by PMcG as still in beta test, with a lot of baked in bad/absent design decisions, crack on. PS forum members seem to like to say they're on the bleeding edge, and hence expect problems - well they shouldn't be facing these basic ones!

 

Chris, I hope you can see that I went in to PSA with every good wish. I was bullshitted. I think Paul McGowan thought that some friendly bullshit and good feeling would do - well they won't. From the PWD blurb - 'So natural are these [Apodizing] filters that they just had to be added to the PWD' - well they're a built-in function of the Wolfson DAC. From the Bridge blurb - 'We knew from the beginning of our project that in order to give our customers a true high-end PS experience - one that would ensure that they would never have to be concerned about performance compromises - we had to do everything from scratch.' - Well they bought in and are having trouble modifying VLC!

 

Matt/ZZ

 

 

 

[vortecjr]

for the record what are the current limitations of the bridge if any? I have the PWD here and all this talk is making me want to try it:) I have tried the eLyric software and that much was pretty cool.

 

Jesus R

www.sonore.us

 

[barrows]

Thanks for the kind words.

 

In the long run, my feeling is that there is no reason to expect different computer audio interface formats to offer better performance. I feel USB, Firewire, Networked, and direct I2S (say from a server with a tweaked internal sound card) all have the capability of giving superb performance when properly implemented.

For my personal use, a simple USB approach makes the most sense as I do not have, and I do not want to bother with, setting up a network at home. Especially I do not want to have any active wifi at home, as I feel it can degrade system performance and may pose a long term health risk (I live in the mountains above Boulder, and the area is relatively "clean" from an RFI perspective). There is also no broadband internet here, so not a lot of reasons to have a network. Having a computer on the audio rack is fine with me, as many suitable computers and small hard drives are inaudible from the listening position-I just make sure to sheild emissions from the computer to the other components, and am careful with the computer power supply isolation. So USB is working for me, and I am getting great sound with it, so I see no reason to change. I can also see that for many people's home environment a networked solution will be preferred. Sonically, I really do not think any of these approaches really have a clear advantage (as long as the implementation is well done, and set up is proper).

 

[timequest]

Thanks Barrows.

 

Very well said.

 

[kana813]

"I just make sure to sheild emissions from the computer to the other components"- barrows

 

How are you doing this?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"No Chris, sorry, you're off base ... Criticise at your peril with Timequest - he has his head so far up Paul McGowan's arse, it makes The Human Centipede look like a prototype."

 

ZZ- Again you rub people the wrong way. Telling me I'm off base and that another reader is up Paul's arse is no way to get any point across or start a conversation in which you wish any outcome other than boosting your ego. It's time to step away from CA for a bit ZZ.

 

 

 

 

 

[ziggyzack]

I'm sure timequest can take it, but if you can't see the humour, then so be it.

 

Off base, I said, because you suggested you need to own the product to comment on it, and I completely disagree. I haven't commented on SQ, I've commented on subjects brought up on PSA's forum, with which I do have some experience, and where I've made a number of posts. I don't think you want people to only comment on items they own, that seems like an odd limitation. Also I doubt you want all comments to be positive.

 

What I have said, I genuinely believe, and have said so robustly - so I hope you won't do what PS have done and pull some of the threads on their forum (not on account of my posts, incidentally).

 

ZZ

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

ZZ - Your putting words into my mouth keyboard and you really don't get what I mean by rubbing people the wrong way. This has nothing to do with who can take what, how thick one's skin is, or negative or positive comments about a manufacturer. What you call "robust" I call abrasive and unacceptable.

 

Here's to a little time off from CA for you.

 

 

 

[esimms86]

I've been an occasional contributor to both the CA and PSA forums and I have owned the PWD + Bridge for 10 months now so I figured that I should weigh in with my experiences. I know Timequest and Priaptor from the PSA forum and they are both clearly standup guys with lots of experience with the products in question and also a definite sense of how to state their opinions with appropriate respect for forum etiquette. I'm not knowledgeable on the ins and outs of linux software but I have to admit that Ziggy, in his unfortunately abrasive way, may have a few good points to make. I'm not posting to defend him but the PSA DAC/Bridge is a combo that everyone agrees to be a pair of products still greatly in need of improvement.

 

Now, before I throw out the baby with the bath water. I should state right out that the sound quality of PWD/Bridge is wonderful. Yes, there are problems with gapless and 24/192 flac but the vast majority of recordings(redbook and 24/96 downloads) play exceptionally well. 24/192 AIFF files also sound great. 24/192 flac files are also easy enough to batch convert to 24/192 AIFF using dbpoweramp. Converting 24/192 flac to AIFF is a minor inconvenience, if you ask me.

 

The knocks against the PWD/Bridge have to do with the aforementioned gapless, the dropouts and microskips(becoming less and less an issue with every firmware upgrade but still an issue, nonetheless), the Bridge firmware sound quality debate(i.e., firmware 2.8 is still preferred by many, myself included, over later released versions), the need to purchase and use a wireless adapter with the bridge for networking, and the basic fact that the bridge was released in august 2010 and now, some 10 months later, the aforementioned problems still exist.

 

PSA also went into this endeavor with a great deal of ambition. Thus far, they have created a DAC with great sonic performance and even greater sonic potential and they have also come up with a fantastic and enjoyable eLyric server all but built from scratch. It's a great product developed with the iPad in mind and it is, in my opinion, a home run. It would have been much easier had they not chosen to go this route(no pun intended) and it certainly would have been simpler to have a proprietary closed system like the Logitech Squeezebox or Transporter. At the same time, the well reviewed Transporter, which I previously owned for several months and was my first foray into computer audio, is, for all of it's simplicity of use, not even in the same league soundwise as the PWD. I would add that the Transporter maxed out at 24/96, which was my main impetus for moving to the PWD.

 

I personally prefer using an NAS setup with the PWD, having started using one and working out the learning curve with the Transporter. The PWD plus iPad, I should add, is a very spouse friendly solution for music listening and I would have a hard time introducing a desktop or laptop computer into my domestic situation(i.e., my wife would not go for it).

 

I fantasize about having a Weiss, Antelope or Phasure DAC with Pure Music, Amarra or XXHighEnd, but I have, truthfully, never heard any of those DACs, and the PWD, once the bugs are worked out, remains the better solution for me and my family. Yes, I've made a monetary commitment to having a PSA system, but there's always audiogon, so I must be staying with it for a reason. I have also upgraded my modest system from a flagship Sony receiver and Mirage speakers to a Marantz PM KI Pearl amplifier with Gallo Strada speakers and Gallo TR3 subwoofer in order to better take advantage of PWD + Bridge, and music in my home has never sounded better. With computer audio I, of course, have rediscovered countless musical gems buried within a 1300 CD collection plus 24/96 and above downloads, 24/192 Reference Recordings, and 24/192 Soundkeeper recordings. Now, if PSA could just fix gapless and allow me to listen to the Beatles' Love and Abbey Road, I'd be over the moon.

 

Esau

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Esau - Well said and thank you very much for providing your opinion.

 

 

 

[catastrofe]

The challenges you point out in your paragraphs 3 & 4 are exactly the reasons I'm moving to a different solution. I just don't want to keep "testing" firmware/software solutions.