We actually base ours on an OEM module, so yes, I am with you. The issues are many. Stream unlimited does not allow a lot of things important to us: DSD, higher resolutions that we need, access to source code, run without master clock. They are very fixed in their platform and ours depends on flexibility especially with the master clock. Plus, we send cover art through a separate I2C channel, have I2S signals etc. Complicated.
Forgive my ignorance. I’m currently using Airport Express to deliver Tidal via AirPlay and a JRiver Id (an Intel NUC programmed with a version of JRiver Media Center) as a DLNA renderer to deliver my music library via Ethernet. It can be controlled using JRiver’s iOS app. How would Bridge II improve my setup?
Thanks.
Edit 6/17: well, I guess ignorance will have to be bliss.
I’m Using a total of 4 Asus RTac3200 , 3 setup in media bridge mode spread around my house and 1 main router connected to my modem, They work flawlessly and I can stream anything to anywhere in my house flawlessly even 4k video…They are triple band smart connect that automatically switch bands to the best connection with the least traffic and I have a constant 1300Mbs connection in my LAN…I have had zero issues since I made all my units the same and totally happy with their performance…FYI They are rolling out dedicated media bridges that will be alot cheaper and can connect to these routers at the same rate…will be called an ea-rt87 and be 4x4 mimo
I read somewhere in the forum that Ted is a fan of ‘Double DSD.’ I may be wrong, but I also believe I read that the Bridge 2 will not handle ‘Double DSD.’ Is this true? I’ve been doing some comparisons between the same songs in both ‘DSD 64’ and PCM 24/192, and I really cannot hear any significant differences. I am interested in hearing ‘DSD 128.’
Thanks,
_Ben
Yes, it’s true that Bridge II will play only single-rate DSD. Some of us expressed disappointment about this when details about B2 were released, and Paul said that adding double-rate capability was not a simple matter (he did not give more detailed technical explanations).
When making comparisons between PCM and DSD, make sure that your DSD files were recorded natively to DSD in order to hear what this technology can really do. Some sites sell DSD files that are converted from PCM; while these can sound good, they should not be the basis for any judgments about formats. Likewise, avoid files that were converted to PCM for editing then back to DSD. Two places that are reliable in this regard are nativedsd.com and Blue Coast Music. Superhirez.com (the digital division of Analogue Productions) is also often transparent about the origin of their downloads, while others like HDtracks are not.
Also keep in mind that quality of recording and mastering is extremely important; a well-produced PCM file will sound better than a badly handled DSD recording.
Having said all that, let me share two experiences.
Some time back, I got curious about DSD and bought a very inexpensive DSD-capable DAC (Shiite Loki) and a couple of good recordings. What I heard even with this DAC was a more analog-like, more relaxed sound (with all the detail one could want, though) that appealed to me very much. I happen to detest any recordings that are overly bright. This probably has to do with how my brain and ears are wired–some people find DSD “too soft.” I now continue to enjoy DSD with my DirectStream, and I am completely convinced that DSD has the potential to sound better than PCM. But YMMV, as always in audio, for the reasons expressed above and also due to the other equipment in your chain, your room, etc. And certainly well-done PCM is very listenable.
Now about double-rate DSD. One of the first recordings I bought to test DSD was recorded in double-rate, even though I bought the single-rate. I later bought the double-rate version to compare. I was not expecting to hear any difference, since it was just a singer and a guitar–I mean, how much extra information could there be? (I might have had different expectations for a symphony.) The difference, while not large, was definitely there; the double-rate version had more of that relaxed, analog-like quality. So it can happen, but make sure that you’re dealing with something originally recorded to double-rate.
Ben, yes this is true. For me personally it’s rather frustrating as the sound and functionality from the B2 is what most anyone would hope for (qualifier - it’s still in beta). It’s not clear to me if this is a limitation of technology not being available for the form factor, or if a choice was driven by other factors like planned selling price.
magister beat me to it!
Thank you for the detailed explanation magister and tony. I really want to hear ‘double DSD’ for myself. I understand that the DS will indeed play double DSD, but it must be done via USB…?? I read that Ted (and I’m only paraphrasing from memory) personally considers Double DSD playback capability important. Oh well…we’ll get our gapless!
Thanks again.
_Ben
Double rate DSD was necessary for the architecture of the DirectStream DAC. Personally I get a lot of enjoyment from my many single rate DSD files from SACDs and downloads. Double rate DSD certainly can be better (the Opus 3 double rate DSD recordings http://www.opus3records.com/ are great examples.) In general I’d pay a little extra for recordings done in double rate DSD but I’m perfectly satisfied with single rate DSD for listening.
“Perfectly satisfied?”
You can lose your audiophile card for publicly admitting this.
timequest said I understand that the DS will indeed play double DSD, but it must be done via USB...??Yes, that's right. I use foobar on a Windows PC to my play 2X DSD files; maybe someone else can chime in on whether JRiver can do so.
foobar2000 and JRiver both do double rate.
The I2S inputs also do double rate DSD - tho few devices except the PS Audio NuWave Phono Converter send double rate DSD over the I2S connection.
timequest said I understand that the DS will indeed play double DSD, but it must be done via USB...??Or I2S.
Sheesh. I should really read all the new posts before I answer.
I don’t know if its the Bridge 1 or not but, apart from the occasional dropout, it takes a much longer time for the DS to load dsf files than,say, flac. Will this problem be addressed in Bridge 2 or is it something else? I seem to remember Ted saying that in certain setups it was taking 12 seconds to load each new dsf file. Although I get a little better than 12 secs, its still takes too long to star playing.
Compared to what? Bridge 1 will take longer to load (at least the first) higher resolution track than, for example, red book. Do your DSD files take longer to load than 176/24 PCM (which is how the Bridge sees DoP files)? 10 seconds or so for the first track is not unusual with the bridge for 176 or 192/24 files. In fact it’s always been the norm in my experience.
Paul/Ted…will Bridge 2 be able to load dsf files as quick as flac does in B1? Using B1 & JR 20 Media Network via power line connectors ? Or is this something else. Apart from the occasional dropout this is the main problem in my setup.
Also, can anyone tell me what bit & sample rate JR use to run dsf files in DoPE? Isnt DoPE different from DoP? My head hurts.
Thanks all.
I’m not an active bridge user so I can’t answer about times or the differences, if any, between having, say JRiver decode flac to wav or having a bridge do it.
A refresher:
DoPE is DoP over Ethernet - i.e. DSD over PCM over Ethernet - no practical difference between DoPE and DoP - both are supported by foobar2000, JRiver MC - the bridge does DoPE and the rest of the DS does DoP.
Single rate DSD is encoded in a 24/176.4k DoP (or DoPE) “envelope”, (double rate DSD in a 24/352.8k DoP envelope). There shouldn’t be any practical difference between queuing single rate DSD as DoP and queuing PCM as 24/176.4k. The bridges don’t do 352.k PCM and therefor not double rate DSD.
With growing question marks, I am reading this topic. Why so much fuss about this Bridge, why takes it so long to develop and why is it so terribly expensive? I have an Oppo 105 and it seems that it has all the network functionalities of the bridge in a $1300 player(!) and in my Linn player it has been working faultless for years (no dsd though).
So for streamers it has become quite normal to have these network functionalities, so why is PS Audio so strugling with this?
Mind you, I am VERY interested in the directstream player, because of the special work Ted is doing and it is probably the first upgrade I want, but this remains a mystery to me. I expect to get the ‘jitter’ answer, but with memory and re-clocking you should be able to handle that…
Can anybody explain?
I think part of the problem you describe is our openness in discussing problems in engineering publicly. The original Bridge was one of the very first network devices on the market, before Linn (or about the same time), before Oppo, before just about anyone. It took several years of work to launch and we were among the very first. It wasn’t perfect and it had failings, and we discussed those openly with our community.
Bridge II has been in the work after we spent another year, or so, getting as many bugs and issues out of Bridge I. And it takes time. Most companies keep mum and you hear little of what goes on in the process of getting something out of the door. We’re a lot more open for better and sometimes for worse.
Following the launch of Bridge I Oppo, and a handful of companies, kept working away on their offerings and eventually launched as well. Some platforms work better than others, some are less expensive than others. Oppo, for example, is a fine product from a fine company and they do things with a lot less cost to consumers than we do. Part of the reason is their overseas engineering team is larger than ours and perhaps they’re even a bigger company? I don’t really know.
At the end of the day, network audio is tough engineering stuff. No one company I am aware of has it nailed - not Linn, not Oppo - they may have done better than we have, but all network systems I have seen have flaws. Perhaps the best network audio player of all times is Sonos - a player I have at home. They do the best job, though it too is not perfect - and last I heard, their revenue just crossed over to a billion dollars. So, I imagine their R and D team is just a little bigger than ours. 
Keep in mind that with the Sonos system, although tops in functionality, sound quality is not their forte’. Oppo, while it has excellent sound, is no DS DAC. Streaming audio in the high quality required by the DS DAC appears to be vexingly difficult. I assumed that it would be an easy task but my assumptions of years ago were horribly mistaken.
Network communications is indeed exasperatingly difficult. For a mature technology (the IBM PC was released in 1981, computing in general is much older), computers remain strikingly unreliable and finicky.
No one yet has any aspect of computing nailed, especially communications.