Given that all DSD processing inside the FPGA occurs using DoP packing anyway… you shouldn’t have any reason to care about whether it’s DoP or not.
But on the practical side, native DSD signalling on the I2S connection from the expansion slot to the FPGA can run at 2/3rds the rate of DoP (you send 16 bits of raw DSD in the same time that you would send 24 bits of DoP) and sends data over two wires in parallel instead of alternating L/R frames on a single wire, so I’m hopeful that B3 will have the potential to do DSD at 128 and perhaps even 256.
Given how happy I am with Roon though… I’ve no idea yet whether B3 will be a product I want to buy. I’m quite looking forward to finding out more about the finished item.
It’s going to be difficult to compete with Roon, it seems. For example, I suspect that a free trial of Octave probably shouldn’t require a credit card number and the chance that the user will forget to cancel. Perhaps I’m overestimating the market dominance of Roon? Maybe not competing with Roon (by making Bridge III Roon-compatible) is not an option? I wonder…
But Octave (the software) will only run on PS Audio equipment so you won’t be able to try the software before you buy. You will be able to see what it looks like and how it runs but not actually use it in your system.
I probably shouldn’t speculate about Octave - I don’t know anything about what is planned for it. I have the DSD Sr., so maybe I’ll get to try it. That would be awesome. The PSA-only requirement will probably leave me out: I like the multi-zone options of Roon. DSD in the listening room, Squeezebox Touch in the Garage, Sony receiver in the basement, PC in the office, yada, yada.
That is correct, though what we’ll likely do is have an online version of it people can play with, so you get a feel for it. We’ll figure something out.
A quick question if I may. Apologies if this has been dealt with before. I presently have a Melco N1Z/H music server. I doubt if I will be able to afford to change this for the new Octave server. Will I gain any benefit from buying a Bridge III when it is launched? Will I be able to use the Octave app?
Currently there’s much debate within the halls of PS Audio. We might vote in favor of not releasing a Bridge III and instead making a lower cost full chassis version of Octave Server that would be close to price of the proposed Bridge III. We have yet to decide.
In the meantime, to answer your question, indeed, whatever we produce will be able to be controlled through Octave.
As this means noticeable expense for add. power and digital cabling (in several setups costing clearly more than this streamer), is this done for the reason of noise avoidance in the DAC and non use of the DAC‘s power supply? Will the sound quality increase be worth that?
That could indeed be interesting if this smaller separate version would be matching or very near the big Octave‘s sound quality with less features and SSD etc.
But I wonder how a separate box‘ed Bridge III (with chassis, add power supply etc.) can be nearly the price of the integrated one?
I’m guessing, but the change of plan could well be to do with the Achilles heal of the dac, which is noise removal/isolation from the physical input cable. Putting another box between your source and the dac may be better at blocking source rf noise for example, this I believe is why the matrix hardware people put before the usb source is so popular.
I’m really observing this matter with much interest, as this Logic surely makes sense (although I also think the separate concept should make it clearly more expensive at otherwise similar ingredients).
As a separate unit then would compete with the complete market of such external devices (Auralic, Matrix etc.), which are partly more flexible in music server SW support, it will be very important for the PSA solution to stay as much superior in sound quality for the price as in other areas and without the need to further optimize with all that tuning stuff.
So at the end it’s probably a question how much the proprietary combination of SW and HW will define sound quality at the PSA solution.
Whether you think MQA is good or bad the fact is the Bridge II decodes it. My guess is that a server in a external box will lose this functionality and perhaps will not even be able to do the first unfold similar to what Roon does. A Bridge III would likely be able to keep this function as it would be integral to the DAC. @Paul is MQA still being considered for Octave or does the separation from the DSD make this no longer a possibility.
Please I’d rather not take this thread off on a MQA tangent but really just curious about the future of MQA in PS Audio products.
I think the concern for PSA is if it’s a separate box then B ll owners looking to upgrade might look at what else is out there. Whilst SQ is important, some people like the convenience/simplicity of a one box solution. Despite it’s software issues over the years the B ll has worked well for many people.
Personally I have been waiting for the B lll but more from a software perspective. If the software sounds/works well then I won’t really care how you serve it up.
I’m of mixed feelings on a separate box replacing Bridge II. I definitely prefer the “no additional box, cable, and power cord” of the Bridge II, so that form factor for Bridge III is my preference. I will admit the form factor does put some serious limitations on what can physically go on the card, but it is nice. Should there be a significant increase in sound quality from a separate box (e.g., the Aries G2) then maybe I will consider it.
For background purposes, I should also say that I do have about 3 TB of music; a mix of CD, hi-rez PCM, and DSD. It’s all on a separate hard drive in my Windows PC which is hooked to the network with JRiver MC25. While the music sounds good, I prefer to listen to a physical copy of the music (CD/SACD) on my DMP. I do listen to streaming frequently, I grew up listening to the radio and I like hearing someone talk about the music. That’s getting rarer with “no DJ” streaming (SOMA FM is my favorite), but having someone pick the music, even if they don’t say anything about it, is a great way to find new music.
All in all, I’m interested in Bridge III whatever form it takes, but it will take a little more thought on my part if it takes the separate box form factor. I’ll also throw in that I’m not real excited about the server, since I mainly stream it would be an expensive replacement of the PC that wouldn’t get used much.
That’s the thing: the computer so many of us use as music servers. It doesn’t seem necessary to replace it. If the processing required to go from ethernet data to digital music signal is a source of problems, why complicate it with server software running in the same box? I suspect that the improvements brought by the “audiophile” software (Octave) require strict control of both the hardware and software environments in which Octave would be run, so the closed hardware and software are necessary to realize the sound quality improvements.
It better be a quite an improvement: any old computer lying around can run a music server, and for $2K less than the Octave price the competition is well-regarded (dCS Network Bridge, e.g.).
From what I understand, the purpose of the closed ecosystem is to ensure it works properly and doesn’t need to interface with other hardware/software built by somebody else that might cause it to not work properly. They can make their stuff sound great with anybody else’s stuff. What they can’t do is make their stuff work properly with everybody else’s stuff. That is just too difficult.