me, i like optical.
2 Likes
2x AES/EBU on 3-pin male XLR connectors, each outputs PCM at up to 24 bit 192kS/s or DSD/64 in DoP format. Used as a Dual AES pair, the interface outputs PCM at up to 384kS/s, DSD/64 & DSD/128 in DoP format. 1x SPDIF on 1x RCA Phono connector, outputs PCM at up to 24 bit 192kS/s or DSD/64 in DoP format. 1x SDIF-2 interface on 2x BNC connectors, outputs PCM at up to 24 bit 96kS/s or SDIF-2 DSD/64.
Thanks for sharing. Digital cables are ignored and over looked too often. I also found their performance ranking changes when you do things such as implement LPS or improve the units in your system. It also changes on the DS DAc when you upgrade output transformers. I oscillated between Inakustik CAT6 and there Referenz Cat7 but settled on the Referenz after modifying the DS.
In this video at the end Carlin Gabriel talks of his discovery that digital cables offer the most improvements compared to signal or speaker cables. He also talked of his new Digital cables coming out and importance of stopping jitter and improvements of data transfer with optimization. Having now seen prices on his new digital cables he is looking to recover his research costs quickly but I bet they also do wonders based on my experience with digital cables He also talks of Everest power conditioner and new power cables that give same performance as that conditioner in a single power cable
1 Like
@Serhan: An admittedly lazy question for you ā
While it is my understanding and experience that the quality of a given recording often (if not always) matters more than the resolution at which the recording is propagated for ādigital transfer and consumptionā, I would like to make sure any change up to my DS digital delivery system is not a step backward in terms of its ability to field the highest resolution possible.
Would you be in a position to know or guess whether the use of a single AES output from the dCS into the DS Sr. would be a compromise in potential resolution flexibility as compared to the Bridge II Ethernet card input?
Thanks in advance.
Scott
Heād say bananas make the most difference if he had a container full of them and they conducted electricity. And I use some of his power cables.
1 Like
The thing about dCS electronics is that they can make 16/44 off a CD sound like a thing of beauty and a joy to behold. The limiting factor would not be the dCS Bridge or the connecting cable used, but the reported evidence that the DSD DAC has quite a high noise floor.
It was listening to the dCS Vivaldi system when it came out in 2013 that made me realise that high resolution files played through lesser equipment donāt get into the same league as DCS playing humble well recorded and mastered 16/44. Every time I hear dCS equipment I feel that way.
I have no issue with wireless, used it myself for years, but it just has a reputation for being unreliable, unlike wired Ethernet.
I donāt understand your comment in the context of what I was asking. I agree that, in general, audible noise is an issue as is āinaudible noiseā that could mask or obscure low level detail. I would still like to know if the dCS Network Bridge would be a step backwards in terms of its ability to handle the, comparatively speaking, range of file resolutions that the DS Bridge II can handle.
Fortunately, after some fiddling and service upgrades, my network is rock solid and I rarely have any reliability issues.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
Itās all here. Single AES, RCA and SDIF go to PCM 24/192 and DSD64 in DoP format.
Having been early into streaming, in the early days wifi was not really an option. For some years I used wireless, but the two units were 12" apart and the other option was a usb connection. The two streamer manufacturers Iāve used for the last 8 or 9 years both told me most of their support issues ended up being network issues, hence they strongly recommend wired connections as it makes their life so much easier.
I have similar connections as @davidl, modem to English Electric switch, then fibre optic via TPlink media converters to my server (but with 9v battery power) and then CAT6a as a data link to my streamer. Until a few weeks ago I had the same speakers and I used a Primare amp for 12 years. Unlike @davidl, Iāve never heard an ethernet cable make any difference, so use $10 Blue Jeans because at least I know itās been tested.
Bear in mind that dCS have been making their own SACD transports for at least 10 years longer than PS Audio and everyone has to chose a proprietary system. They chose to use encrypted DSD over AES/EBU. PS Audio went for I2S and Marantz went for some sort of DIN. Others went for I2S with different configurations. Thanks to Sonyās restrictions, it seems that if using DSD via SACD or native, it probably makes sense to stick to one company and there wonāt be issues. If you have all-dCS kit you can move up to DSD 128 over Dual EAS/EBU.
My Innuos can stream native DSD, but my Devialet converts it, I think to 30/384 PCM or something.
Happy New Year to you as well.
10-4.
Thanks for the clarification.
Well he claims he spent three years developing. Interesting he has only one ethernet cable and four or more USB cables the most expensive starts at 3K dollars. He does appear to have the most costly metallurgy. I am afraid to try it for fear of liking it. The 9K 4 gauge omega power cables that store current. I want new amps first for those dollars.
I used DACs via usb for about 4 or 5 years. It was ethernet before that and ethernet since. I was tidying up the loft tonight and clearing out my spares box. It contains the only audiophile usb cable I have ever owned, a Chord C usb, which would cost $50. It cost me about $5 as it was in a blister pack on the front of a magazine.
I have never felt in the least bit deprived. My wife was out walking with a friend the other day and the friend was decrying the fact that they have had to sell their flat and yacht in the South of France. Thatās real deprivation. To be honest, I didnāt like the flat and the only time I went on their boat there was a storm and it was horrible. Life is liveable without boats and $9k cables.
2 Likes
I would not go that far. Maybe if the audio system was not upgraded and the engine horsepower was not doubled. Those tweaks easily burn up more than double 9 K but in my book are must haves. One must have great stereo to overcome wind blast and exhaust roar cruising beyond 80 knots. But boats like stereos take huge dollars to eek out better performance and one must start from upper end in used market to flirt with world class performance.
Well Iām happiest in a canoe or on a raft drifting slowly down a river. Life in the slow lane.
1 Like
Hi Scott
@scotte1. I am not a dCS owner. So, my judgement could be flawed. My preferred supplier tried to dissuade me from buying the dCS bridge, and their reasoning was that it works best with it own eco system.
On the surface of it, the dCS bridge could work perfectly with the main digital format many baby boomers use, i.e. CD rips. Bearing in mind that removing Bridge II from DS DAC improved every aspect of the playback for all formats whether through coax, USB, AES, or I2S. Hence, I believe the comparison between dCS bridge and Bridge II is not properly contextualized and you might be better off with other options. This is why I opted for Nucleus+ (storage is still on a Naim Core) > DS DAC via USB and that sounds better than the coaxial while Bridge II is installed, and much better after removing it. Matrix arrives in a week or so, and it will sit in between Nucleus and DS DAC. I will test it both via AES and I2S. Bridge II is stowed away for a rainy day.
Edit: recording, mastering, and playback is a chain. It is as strong as itās weakest link. It starts with microphones and ends with home speakers with studio folks in between. Old vs modern is a valid argument provided the best was put into the chain without compromises. This is not always the case. So, there would always be good old recordings and good modern recordings. Is there a future for higher resolution formats? Definitely. Memory, storage, cloud, streaming are evolving fast and competition is rife. These developments would definitely pave the way for bigger and better files. The question is, how future proof do we want a system to be and how passionately some of us hold on to their existing libraries of CDs and LPs me included.
Well-implemented, optical does wonders.
2 Likes
I still think one of the mistakes of digital audio evolution was the lack of adoption of the AT&T ST glass interface.
2 Likes
Where was it adopted (if anywhere)?
There were a few far sighted companies back in the 80s and 90s who used ST glass. EAD (Enlightened Audio Designs), Mark Levinson (pretty sure), Wadia (also pretty sure), Paulās old Genesis Time Lens, Meitner, Theta (pretty sure). Maybe one or two others. I think the reason why it wasnāt widely adopted (partly) was because it was a bit more expensive than coax - certainly more expensive than Toslink. It was significantly better IME than either of those. The latest rounds of fiber optic interface du jour make me smile. While a much earlier technology, if the industry had gotten on board with AT&T glass, IMO we could have been in the realm of direct fiber connections by now without the need of Gigafoils and the like.
2 Likes
Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Tony!
