DirectStream, Bridge II, Roon, and the Future

Audio Components DACs
21
rayk said

If I had $5 for every time someone in these Forum pages freaked out about the scope of Bridge III and 3rd Party music server support, well I’d be able to buy a BHK amplifier or two. I think PSA would be best served, as Karl suggested way above, if they just gave the new Bridge a different code name. After all it is really a very different product with a very different purpose.

We’d all be better off as we wouldn’t have to talk another person from jumping out the PSA window for all the wrong reasons.

Who, exactly, is freaking out? Nor do I understand how this thread is "off the rails" as I started it and I wanted to understand the future of built-in Roon endpoints. All I am trying to understand is the future of Roon and the DirecStream DAC/Bridge II I own. I was not asking about Octave. I am not interested in Octave.

It sounds like Roon support is not even on PSA’s radar for new products. People that want a built-in Roon endpoint will have to stay with the Bridge II or use external endpoints.

I guess the last question is about MQA. Right now, the only way to get MQA support is to use the Bridge II interface. Will MQA ever be built-in to the DAC or will it always require a Bridge II or Bridge III (whatever it will be called) card to be installed and used?

22
Speed Racer said

Who, exactly, is freaking out? Nor do I understand how this thread is “off the rails” as I started it and I wanted to understand the future built-in Roon endpoints.


Agreed. You could argue that if anyone is overreacting, it’s those folk bandying about words like DIY’ers, tweakers, haters, freaking out etc…
Yes - this has been discussed before, but not everyone (especially those making their 1st post) has read those prior threads.

It is very heartening to hear Paul say that the decision to exclude Roon endpoint functionality from the B3 (whatever…) is not a done deal. Just reading the forums here indicates that there are many ROON/PSA DSDac users out there.
By the time Octave comes to fruition I strongly suspect that there will be many more such users. Is that not a market worth up-selling too?

I for one would be happy to have the opportunity to upgrade to a network bridge that offers better features (eg DSD128) and better performance.

Cheers!

Mark

23

My two cents is that the thread is pretty much contained in the first 8 posts. SR said he has to have Roon, people replied that it isn’t supposed to - which was/is the current state of understanding of those who have been following the threads on the development of BIII and Octave. But Paul has changed his mind before. A similar bunch of back and forth happened with MQA implementation. I get the feeling this and maybe some other thread prompted today’s Paul’s Post.

SR was clear, I thought, in his rejection of a closed and/or Roon-less system. jtwrace called the Roonless notion “shocking and bizarre”. Seemingly end of story. If the product is not for you - cool. Can’t make everyone happy.

This is yet another product that is in development that nonetheless is subject to everyone’s opinions at every step of that development - due to the extreme openness of the process here in PSVille. When I referred to “haters”, it was a general, tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that, historically, there will be people who are unhappy with each and every decision that is made - even before the product exists. It literally did not cross my mind that SR would think I was referring to him (which in retrospect was an oversight in my writing on my part).

The idea as I understand it, is that there have been frustrations and delays with having the Bridge made by an outside developer that could be sorted by doing it internally, and if you want the whole Octave concept to function properly, you really want to write the software as well. It’s not full on Isolationism ; ) - it just makes for less frustration by not being dependent upon outside suppliers for making sure stuff works, or when it gets delivered (we aren’t necessarily talking fully walled garden here). This may mean that it won’t work for everyone with every app they like/use.

The whole notion was inspired by the idea of creating a system that circumvents all of the hoops we end up jumping through to implement a decent computer audio system, and keep the software functioning, providing ease of use, comprehensive database, etc., ALL while trying to achieve sound quality that equals or bests (what is for many, at least around here) the current standard, the DMP/DS combo.

I mean - look at some of the chains of stuff that folks have implemented here, or on for example CA (not to pick on them). I think it’s not unfair to suggest that some computer audiophiles are tweakers, just as many non-computer audiophiles are. Not a negative judgement, more of a fact based on the current realities of trying to make a computer audio system function and sound its best. Multiple external linear power supplies, galvanic isolation of USB/ethernet, etc., dozens of hardware and software options that all need to function efficiently and silently (as in not adding noise to the signal). Paul is making it for himself as much as for us, as it seems like a pretty awesome idea.

24

It is unlikely we will have MQA support inside the DAC because to do that requires us to make changes to the DAC’s sound which is something we’re not about to do. Also, it would mean our DAC could not be easily upgradeable as every time we upgraded we would have to resubmit the DAC for approval. Neither is an acceptable solution.

By placing the MQA decoder inside the network card we avoid all those problems. The DAC itself remains pristine.

We may be able to add ROON as an endpoint in the Octave based network card (Bridge III). It depends on how much people want it and if it all fits. What I had said in the past is that we will not make Octave operable with ROON as its OS. Requiring customers to purchase an operating system doesn’t fit our model. If customers already have purchased ROON and accepted the use of a computer to run it, then adding their endpoint software in Bridge III might make sense.

It’s really too early to say yes or no to anything like that and my apologies for having done so. Octave is a huge undertaking and we’re doing our best to make it as clean and simple to use as possible. Even offering a choice of OS (as some have asked) was rejected because it is just too fiddly. Octave and its implementation needs to be easy, simple, effective.

25

Well stated Beef. Bridge II was included with my DS purchase but I have not set it up yet.For streaming I use my Cambridge Audio CXN. While not in the same league as PS components, it was already in place and set up. I like the user interface and can stream from my normal sources as well as my FLAC files on NAS drive. And all via WiFi! I have no Ethernet cable access in the basement listening room.

As stated by others, DMP/DS is the bar that has been set. Since having these components I have spent $0 on hi-res downloads; they just don’t sound as good in comparison. Plus I already own the music on CD. Win/Win for sure.

I am aware I may be missing out on SQ with my streaming set up, but I have just not had the desire to jump through all of the hoops to set up the Bridge. I’ve read most of the forum posts and I am not an IT guy.confused-28_gif I just want to listen to music. I am in front of a computer all day at work, and that is the last thing I want to fool with at home. Maybe I am in the minority in this crowd, but a computer-free, plug and play solution is very appealing to me. Come on Octave!

26

A Roon endpoint is all I ask, as it is a qualifier for me to buy any DAC now, including this one. I could care less about MQA personally.

My Roon Core (server) is in another room on an Intel NUC, with all content on a Synology NAS, so at present the Bridge II does the job just fine. I do see a lot of value possible in the Bridge III, if for no other reason than for PSA to have complete creative control over the device hardware and software in house.

27

I totally agree! Must. Have. Roon

28

I’ll make a bit of a reach here with a couple of solutions. First, is it possible to make a Bridge III with a reconfigurable operating system, ala DS FPGA, such that it could be user changed from an Octave based to a Roon based operating system? Second, can PS Audio offer two versions of Bridge III; one with Octave loaded, the other with Roon loaded? Seems like either one would be a solution to most of the concerns voiced here.

29

I’m curious - is the attachment to Roon due to buying the lifetime sub, or the idea that you cannot imagine anything being equal or better?

I say this as a Roon subscriber/admirer, (as is Paul). I’m streaming Wilco MQA on Tidal via Roon as we speak…uh, text, I guess you could say.

And further, is it related to not wanting to be tied to anything (other than Roon)? You want to be able to use any software and hardware combination?

30

badbeef,

Personally, I prefer the sound quality of streaming with JRiver over Roon, and always use JRiver for critical listening. But I like the user experience, multi-room capability, Tidal integration, and now MQA delivery of Roon. Roon has a pretty significant head start on PSA, so its hard to imagine them being able to deliver all of that and better sound in the first release. Of course, their job is a little easier because they don’t have to worry about multiple OSes, unfamiliar hardware devices. etc., so not inconceivable that they can catch up. But a long putt, let’s call it.

31

Karl - all of this shit gives me a headache after going-on-two-decades of audio server use. I mean - read your first sentence again - which I completely get, though I never cared for the usability of JRiver myself, despite having tried many of Versions 1-through-Whatever it Is Now. But I guess that’s because, as a Squeezebox user, I had had WAY better usablility (only needed a remote) than anything requiring a computer for a long time. (If I’m missing something about JRiver functionality, I’m sure I’ll hear about it).

It’s not unlike most audio gear - we like what we have, generally speaking - and if we have bought into an ecosystem, we want the provider to keep supporting everything we want, indefinitely.

Yes - PS may not be able to deliver the World-Beater system that Will Make Everyone Happy. I just get so tired of people attempting to Try the Case in the Internet Court of Public Opinion…BEFORE THE THING EXISTS!

32

Whoa there! Who is trying a case against anything?? You keep trying to make this about Roon versus Octave. Pease stop it. Why is it a problem for people that are invested in Roon to ask questions about the future of Roon support on PS Audio products? Being for Roon does not mean one is somehow against Octave.

What I find strange is the expectation that just because PS Audio is coming out with Octave at some point in the future, Roon users are all going to jump ship and invest in Octave. Some will and some won’t. I think it would be wise for PS Audio to not alienate Roon users by deprecating Roon support.

All of this is exactly why I asked the my original question. Based on what I read here, I was concerned that Roon support was being abandoned in the next iteration of the “Bridge II” product. Be that “Bridge III” or whatever it will be called. I am hopeful that this thread will make PS Audio aware that there are a lot of Roon users out there that have no plans to abandon Roon and that it would be a good idea to let them take advantage of the improved “Bridge” card that comes out in the future.

33

Go! Speed Racer, Go!

34

As I understand it, Bridge III will not just be an updated network card but rather a full blown server on a card, I believe running Linux with Octave as the server software. That means you can just attach a USB drive with your music or point it to a NAS with no need for a computer. From what Paul says, PSA may yet decide at add a Roon endpoint but it would seem that in that case the Bridge III would just be functioning as a network card like Bridge II, which would waste those added capabilities of Bridge III. Is that correct?

35

Let’s consider the possibility that there may be in the future an update to Bridge 2 (a true “Bridge 3”) that will be a separate and independent product than the upcoming Octave Server Card (which people are currently referring to as Bridge 3). But it may be way too early for Paul to comment on the possibility or features of said product, if in fact it is under consideration. With the growing importance of streaming and the myriad of software choices people use, I cannot imagine PS Audio would not be considering such a product update down the line to provide a higher end server card to those who choose not to go the route of the Octave Server. To me, the Bridge 2 DSD 64 limitation is a glaring omission in need of a hardware update, and I don’t think the Octave Server will be the solution for most DS and DSjr owners. Thus, you have an obvious market niche for a true high end bridge 3 product that is separate from the Octave ecosystem.

36
Speed Racer said What I find strange is the expectation that just because PS Audio is coming out with Octave at some point in the future, Roon users are all going to jump ship and invest in Octave.
I do not believe anyone expects this. Some Roon users will stick with Roon, refusing to change, some will find Octave superior. People have all sorts of preferences. Roon user who have purchased lifetime subscriptions will likely, and understandably, be the most recalcitrant.
37
stevem2 said

As I understand it, Bridge III will not just be an updated network card but rather a full blown server on a card, I believe running Linux with Octave as the server software. That means you can just attach a USB drive with your music or point it to a NAS with no need for a computer. From what Paul says, PSA may yet decide at add a Roon endpoint but it would seem that in that case the Bridge III would just be functioning as a network card like Bridge II, which would waste those added capabilities of Bridge III. Is that correct?


Paul wrote this in another thread:

Paul McGowan said

Yes. It will be a replacement for Bridge II. An upgrade in performance as well as control.

I think what’s confusing is all the unexplained terminology I am throwing about. Sorry. There’s hardware and control software. Octave is the control software. Bridge III will be the hardware that it controls. Contrast that to what we have today. Bridge II is the hardware and MConnect or any UPnP controller is the software that controls it.

So Bridge III hardware in unrelated to the big server hardware. What they will share is the control software, called Octave.


That makes it sound like the Bridge III card is not all that different in function from the what we have in the Bridge II card today. What I mean by that is it doesn’t sound like Bridge III is going to be a server on a card. It sounds like it will be an Octave endpoint, so to speak.

Paul also wrote this:

Paul McGowan said

The music server does not contain a Bridge III and I am not sure where that came from.

Bridge III will be a “lite” version of the big server for those interested in just streaming from something like Tidal or a NAS - kind of like Bridge II does now - only better.

The big music server has the same Octave software as does Bridge III, but as pointed out, it also has a built in ripper and hard drive, galvanically isolated everything and is the pinnacle of how a server should work.

You wouldn’t want both.


So I am still a bit confused. But that’s okay. I just want people that want to keep using Roon and MQA have that option!

38

No, actually it is a server and an endpoint in one. The Bridge II is only an endpoint and cannot build a playlist or accept media from a USB drive or connect to a NAS and then catalog everything.

39

Actually I think that confirms my interpretation, although it is a bit confusing. Bridge III will serve the same function as the “big server hardware.” Paul confirmed in another thread today that Bridge III will have a USB input for a hard drive. See http://www.psaudio.com/forum/directstream-all-about-it/bridge-iii-1/page-3/

Edit: Paul beat me to it. But with a lot more authority.

40

Great suggestions and ideas though we’ve already determined we’re not going to make multiple versions of the bridge. A Bridge III based on the ROON operating system would be a start over project and one we don’t see value in pursuing. I know a few people would like this. I get it and understand. It’s just not something in the cards. We will try for a ROON endpoint so you can have your cake and sort of eat it too. I know endpoints are the best idea because they still require a computer.

The problem with ROON as the sole OS is we haven’t any control over the outcome. And, should ROON go away the product becomes a brick.

Octave solves all those problems except for those committed to finding a standalone solution with ROON at its core. I do see the appeal. I like ROON too. It’s just not something that’s going to work for us.