I finally got my DSD’s bridge II hooked up to my local lan via a ethernet to wifi dongle. Upon first listening, the bridge II stream just doesn’t sound as good as my streamer, it’s louder for sure, but the quietness between instruments/players and the sweetness of the voices just isn’t there in comparison.
Keep on playing with the bridge II, I wanted to get the album arts to work, and I read here I need a SD card plugged, so I did that… and WoW, the sound is so much closer to my streamer to the point I almost can’t tell the difference. Still louder, and the over all presentation is more refined than without a SD card.
Does anyone here experience the same or, as the title suggests, I’m just a crazy audiophile?
It’s plausible that the presence or absence of the SD card makes an audible difference. Perhaps the CPU radiates more noise or messes with the power supply when looking for a SD card that isn’t there.
Plausible, but highly unlikely, I hope? Better question, could that query even be remotely audible, let alone provide a more “refined presentation”? If so, then that Bridge 2 card was not designed well at all.
It isn’t necessarily a function of the bridge card at all. The host/display/control processor can affect the sound of the whole DAC by the timing of when it draws current, especially current in exterior devices. Anyway the wires to the SD card run under the bridge card and are long. Waving them in the breeze when a SD card isn’t there could cause enough EMI to affect things a little. People hear the differences caused by fuses, power cords, brightness of the display, etc.
BTW The audibility of small changes often goes up with better designs, not down. When there’s less noise overall, then any added noise is more obvious. Of course the opposite can and does happen, but sensitivity to small changes isn’t a clear indication of good or bad design.
How much current is it drawing from an SD card? Why not put onboard cache on the Bridge, to avoid noisy wires?
I was speaking more to the fact that PS Audio chose to use an SD card to store artwork on the Bridge. That to me is a bad design, as it SHOULD be a function of the bridge card, as it is a streamer.
Just an observation…you obviously are way more knowledgeable in audio than I am, so thanks for taking the time to explain how it could affect sound.
PS Audio is indeed doing cover art differently these days, the chassis for the PerfectWave series has been around for more than a decade. The bridge doesn’t have access to the display where as the control processor does. It would have been nice if the original bridge or the original control processor had enough spare temporary memory for a cover, but they didn’t.
Do designers care about half as much for sound quality matters around ADC‘s as for DAC‘s? Or do ADC‘s belong to the „professional world“ where too much care has an appearance of voodoo or „audiophile gimmicks“?
There are plenty more. Pros and gearheads argue over them as much as audiophiles fuss about equipment. The main difference is pros are very sensitive to cost. They have to justify the expenditure.
Yes, maybe that’s the only difference. At least it seems professionals also don’t see the need to upgrade nearly anywhere as often as audiophiles do
This (especially unfortunate in the digital world) can mean that their recording or mastering chains stay as they are for 10-30 years (according to what is published here and there, and meanwhile they tend to publish their efforts).
It’s just a guess but when I hear (through the recordings we buy) the positive effects of known upgrades of mastering equipment, I think a little more or frequent „audiophile considerations“ in this world would bring more benefit to what we listen to than most optimizations on playback side.
I wouldn’t have expected the most expensive ADC behind your link to have a golden faceplate in the pro world
And it’s interesting that even the top model has nothing more mentioned than very basic technical data (even very short under “features”) on the manufacturer site. No story about fancy implemenations or further details. Well, it’s a different world (not necessarily worse). Maybe it’s just the difference between the kind of engagement (or call it craziness) for a hobby vs. profession.
But the different worlds maybe also get obvious when observing that e.g. the Pacific Microsonics Model 2 is still considered as the best AD/DA converter within the studio scene and used by today’s best engineers for producing our media we’re listening to on at least 3-5 yearly updated digital playback equipment. The Model 2 as far as I know is 15-20 years old. Even if a digital unit was built like a tank and fitted with gorgeous periphery, a superiority of such an old digital technology (even if it was extremely expensive) to today’s offers would never happen in the playback world That doesn’t mean I doubt how good it is, I have no clue, I just wonder. Imagine…good and expensive consumer equipment of that time was something like a Wadia 861…something we’d guess, today’s alternatives of 1/4th of the price would beat hands down (not to speak of firmware updates for a certain DAC during the last few years )
If you had listened to all 3 flavours of Snowmass everyone agreed they sounded quite different to each other. However Teds dac code was identical in all of them, the only difference was in the the PIC code that controls the display etc. It as all about changing noise patterns, and it’s massively important to final sound. Besides I’m 100% sure Ted knows what he is talking about.
So you say the guys designing ADC’s and other studio equipment are more skilled than those like Ted, designers of other leading digital consumer audio etc. …or have more money and time available…or what is it that makes recording technology better in the context I had before? So much better that this equipment doesn’t need updates in 20 years?
No, not more skilled, addressing totally different issues.
Consider, for example, the gross inaccuracies of any speaker v. what is possible with a microphone.
Or how good a 1960 recording can sound on modern equipment. The playback equipment available in 1960 was not anywhere as good as the ability to record at the time.
The only takeaway I suggest is recognizing recording and mastering engineers are as obsessed with producing the best possible sound as audiophiles are in playing it back.
Elk, I disagree with your last sentence. I’m sure there are some recording and mastering engineers that are obsessed with producing the best possible sound. However, the quality of most recording do not support this. If that were the case, we would not have recordings & mastering that are clearly superior in quality to others. I am convinced that most are interested in providing a product that appeals more to the masses and will provide the most income/profit and recognition. Finding great recordings, especially with popular music, is one of the largest obstacles for great playback.
Yes, and this is the best possible sound for the intended market. Producers and engineers put a great deal of energy and obsessive care into producing it.
Ah I understand, sure, HW doesn’t play that role in making a recording challenging enough for whatever playback gear. And I think that’s possibly why no one is focused on it on recording side as much as on playback side.
My guess still is, that potential sales of even more sophisticated recording gear don’t justify a use of efforts similar to high end home audio. Can’t explain it otherwise. Sure there’s Meitner…but probably not so many more in that class.
I don’t want to engage bad mood against the professional scene, I really don’t get the differences except what you say, that recordings done with whatever equipment are still good enough to challenge today’s playback gear. But within various remasterings, we also see the improvements possible when that gear is updated.
That the analog gear and recording processes around the 50’s, 60’s was another level is a different matter
More attention is lavished on the playback side because it is a hobby which enthusiasts will pay for.
The recording side has to make money. But this does not mean less care and effort goes into recording equipment. In fact, it puts pressure on designers to make the best possible equipment on a budget. This often leads to breakthroughs in design.
Even better sound is already there on the CDs we have owned for years. The playback equipment just needs to improve to pull this sound off of the CDs.
That’s a very interesting topic, but I don’t want to stress it too much anymore, promised.
I think on the recording side, HW progress is very meaningful for the buck, while possibly not as big as it could be. On playback side progress may be more maxxed out, but at a much worse cost/performance ratio.
