Please can you arrange for us to have Bit perfect test files 176.4 and 192 same as the 96khz file I converted the 96khz file to 192 and that does not return a positive result on the USB or the bridge inputs
Thanks
Johno
I've sent him email with the location of the 24/192kHz bit perfect test file. If the 24/192k bit perfect test works it's very unlikely that the 24/176.4 will fail, at least from a USB connection or the bridge.
The poorman’s 176.4 test is to play single rate DSD. If it sounds good (and the DS display says DSD64) you probably have a bit perfect path for DSD.
Similarly if you see 44.1k / 24 instead of 44.1k / 16 on the DS display when you play CDs you don’t have a bit perfect path.
after converting the test file 24/96 to 24/192 I could not get the test file to work and the dBpoweramp does not have the option for the 176.4 both USB and the bridge fail.
I would like to see a bit perfect 100% pass else Ill be buying that Intel NUC and using a short USB cable
Understood. It is not something Bridge II is going to be able to do. You’d be better off using USB connected to a computer. Even a small Mac Mini like I use winds up being about the same price. It’s not integrated like the Bridge, is a pain in the butt to get setup, but it does have certain advantages the Bridge doesn’t. One of them being double rate DSD.
I have invested in my LAN to and don’t want to have a PC in my audio room. I’m terribly disappointed. One of the main reason I select the MKII and now the DS was the bridge.
adriaan said
Okay understood, the only thing is that I justed invested more than 1000 euro on optimizing my network cables/switch
That's probably a good thing under any circumstance. But realistically how much music is out there you're going to miss at 2X DSD? I have like 2 pieces, neither of which i actually like ....
I have a few albums from them that I enjoy most of. HamOrgan cracks me up, but it sounds amazing. I mean, seriously, who thought of a duet between a Harmonica and a Pipe Organ! That album gets a lot of play when I have friends over. The Harmonica is so personal and right there in the room with you, and the Pipe Organ is HUGE and overwhelming.
Please can you arrange for us to have Bit perfect test files 176.4 and 192 same as the 96khz file I converted the 96khz file to 192 and that does not return a positive result on the USB or the bridge inputs
Thanks
Johno
I’ve sent him email with the location of the 24/192kHz bit perfect test file. If the 24/192k bit perfect test works it’s very unlikely that the 24/176.4 will fail, at least from a USB connection or the bridge.
The poorman’s 176.4 test is to play single rate DSD. If it sounds good (and the DS display says DSD64) you probably have a bit perfect path for DSD.
Similarly if you see 44.1k / 24 instead of 44.1k / 16 on the DS display when you play CDs you don’t have a bit perfect path.
Hello Paul,
Any chance you can help and make available in the download section - Bit perfect test files 176.4 and 192 same as the 96khz bit perfect test file.
It isn’t as if we “decided” not to support Double DSD in Bridge II. We simply cannot due to hardware and driver restrictions. It would mean another year or two setback. Of course DirectStream’s other inputs do, and always have, supported double DSD.
It’s instructive to remember that streaming over a network and connecting to a DAC through hard wired means are completely different.
Paul McGowan said
It's instructive to remember that streaming over a network and connecting to a DAC through hard wired means are completely different.
I read this a couple of times and didn't get it. I think what you mean is that streaming over a network and connecting directly to a computer are different. (My ethernet setup seems pretty hard-wired to me.)
If I’m understanding correctly, this is something that I had not appreciated. In an earlier thread I commented on the large number of DSD-enabled DACs coming out now, including many that can do double-rate DSD. As I think about it, I realize that almost all of them are USB-based.
What is it about streaming over ethernet (or wifi) that is difficult? I’m guessing that when playing from a computer, the player software does some of the work to decode or prepare the file before sending it out to the DAC, whereas over ethernet the entire load falls on the Bridge (or whatever interface one uses between the network and the DAC). Is that anything like correct? Is implementing the “decoding” of a DSD file more complex than with a PCM file?
magister said
Is implementing the "decoding" of a DSD file more complex than with a PCM file?
Actually yes. DSD is trivial to convert to DoP, handling it native requires everything in the path to deal with a 2822400 sample rate, which isn't nearly as common as being able to deal with 24/176.4 (DoP)
On the other hand DSD files can be compressed to DST. DST is very difficult to decompress quickly on a general purpose processor - Until recently it took more than one core to do it: foobar2000 (well at least the foo_input_sacd addon) still spawns multiple threads each working in parallel on it’s own chunk and then reweaves them together. DST is much more common on longer multi-channel SACDs. My collection of (the stereo section of) SACDs has more DST tracks than DSD tracks.
Many of the streamers out there don’t have high power multiple core CPUs - they probably can’t do DST.
On the gripping hand the only place you’re likely to see a lot of DST is in SACD images.
Still I don’t think this is the crux of the matter - handling 24/176.4 or 24/352.8k is all a streamer really needs to do if there’s something like JRiver or foobar transcoding the files - but handling general SACD images (which I use all of the time) directly is a big PITA and requires significant resources.
Thank you Ted and Gordon. I can certainly see how decoding multichannel DSD, particularly if compressed, would require a lot of hardware. Gordon’s description makes sense in terms of Paul’s decision not to support double-rate DSD with Bridge II.
Having decided to place a small computer in the music room and use a short USB cable, Ted do you mind offering me your opinion? do you think there is an audible advantage adding the USB expansion board JCAT USB or similar product.
Having decided to place a small computer in the music room and use a short USB cable, Ted do you mind offering me your opinion? do you think there is an audible advantage adding the USB expansion board JCAT USB or similar product.
Appreciated
John
I like the idea of a small computer with USB - I think it has a lot of potential for both a good user experience and great sound.
I’m pretty sure you will hear a difference with differing cables. But whether it’s small or large, good or bad I can’t guess. My system isn’t very sensitive to USB cables or CPU’s but most I’ve heard are. What Paul likes with the JCAT I don’t like as much, but I think there are more people here that would hear what Paul hears and fewer that value what I like Things like width or depth of soundstage don’t matter to me, I care about realistic sounding instruments and whether a system makes my toes tap. These things aren’t mutually exclusive but we all have different things that float our boats.
You may be able to find a local dealer who will let you audition some cables and if you find that they make a big difference then you can take the time to find the ones you like best. Also some dealers recommend or build various music computers that you might be able to audition before you spend a lot of money there as well. Local audio clubs also often have members who are generous with their time and like to show off their equipment either at your house or yours at theirs…
oll said
I have invested in my LAN to and don't want to have a PC in my audio room. I'm terribly disappointed. One of the main reason I select the MKII and now the DS was the bridge.
I use the Bridge pretty well exclusively. I like to have my cake and eat it too so it would be nice to have Bridge II play double rate DSD. However, do I need it? I got some nice dsf files from Acoustic Sounds. I had no idea there was a difference at the time and I would be seriously annoyed if they would not play, but they do.
oll said
I have invested in my LAN to and don't want to have a PC in my audio room. I'm terribly disappointed. One of the main reason I select the MKII and now the DS was the bridge.
I use the Bridge pretty well exclusively. I like to have my cake and eat it too so it would be nice to have Bridge II play double rate DSD. However, do I need it? I got some nice dsf files from Acoustic Sounds. I had no idea there was a difference at the time and I would be seriously annoyed if they would not play, but they do.
I used exclusively the bridge for years and also never wanted a PC in the music room however I've moved on to accept it isn't that bad. my main reasoning is the audible sound and the recent releases of the Intel NUC removes the sound issue for me.
That fact that Ethernet transport to the bridge made the connection possible - cable length was not a problem I enjoyed the bridge for a good couple of years.
I would spend approximately 1k on the new Bridge mk11 or about the same on an Intel NUC i5 and Win 8.1 solution and if I get real fussy about things I can try Linux, I did a Linux build once before but heard no audible difference so reasonably happy with Intel NUC and Win 8.1 - fildelizer and JPLAY in combination should be sweet and easy
the current bridge works well for me playing all formats and resolutions up to and including DSD64 only not doing DSD128
my USB on 5 meter extension cable is playing DSD128and passing the 96k bit perfect test
That’s it with a PC you have more clutter and spends more $$$. What l like of the bridge is the 1 box simple solution. What will get new from the bridge II? Just gapless? I still don’t get how difficult can be to just path thru the DoP DSD128 directly to the FPGA. Why others can do DSD128 via ethernet and PSA cannot? The driver and harware, well maybe it’s time for new options. It takes more time, well why not give it a shot with more passion. And yes DLNA is not perfect but it can be done.
Things like width or depth of soundstage don’t matter to me, I care about realistic sounding instruments and whether a system makes my toes tap. These things aren’t mutually exclusive but we all have different things that float our boats.