HQPlayer and the Directstream. Settings?

[alexreusch]

Don’t get me wrong. The Bridge II is not a bad solution, but according to some posts in this forum, it seems that users are getting better results using USB, I2S and even Toslink.

I agree, it is absolutely necessary to place an optical break in the Ethernet feed. It’s all about cutting out your noisy neighbors that sit in your home network (Server, NAS, IP-TV Box as well as the Ethernet Switch itself).

Ethernet seems to be such a big problem, that @tedsmith does not want to deal with it on his future reference system, the TSS DAC.

@tedsmith

The bridge function will be handled by the new Octave/Music server strategy - I don’t know the details. The display/control process will be much more powerful than the current bridge and will be able handle the streaming functions, there will be an Ethernet jack/connection to the control processor and I2S from the control processor to the FPGA with plenty of bandwidth. Bridge like functions will be implemented in software and or externally with, say a music server. I just wanted to keep the bridge hardware/software stuff away from the guts of the digital box and make sure that it’s use is optional (and the hardware can be powered down when not used) for those that don’t want to use it. Beyond that PS Audio will be designing it.

@tedsmith

Paul definitely likes the idea of an app as well. There will be an optional Ethernet connection to the display. It will be able to be disabled in the hardware for people that don’t want the associated noise (or hassle.) Conversely there will be an option to use it to upgrade the software, one again optional and controlled by the user.

This is my own speculation, but I believe that there are the following reasons for leaving Bridge functions out of the future TSS DAC:

1. SQ. Get rid of every component, that could introduce noise. Ethernet is one of the worst. Keep it as far away from the DAC as possible or when used as service interface, allow it to be disabled.

2. Complexity. Implementing Bridge functions means dealing with additional software complexity (server/player software, Roon endpoint etc.). Having separate devices per function will also increase flexibility. Simply build the best sounding DAC. No cumbersome additional software.

3. Control. By focussing on the ONE core competency, you have full control of the product.

Looking at the statements from Ted, it seems that having a rock solid Ethernet solution, that fits audiophile requirements, is absolute key. So you should hand this problem over to people, who do have deep knowledge of the problem and deal with Ethernet based audio streaming for years (experience). The opticalRendu is Sonore’s third generation of audio optimized streaming platforms (not counting the SonicorbiterSE). I really believe that they know exactly what they are doing (because this is ALL they do)… it’s their ONE core competency.

Coming back to placing an optical break in the Ethernet feed: By using Matrix and I2S, this is not necessary the case (and who takes care of the Ethernet implementation?) Also, going optical on the Matrix (Toslink) will limit my possibilities streaming DSD files. I have some nice DSD128 that I really love…

USB on the other hand, gives me the most flexibility here. I did not have the chance to play with the opticalRendu yet, but I do have experience with the microRendu and the ultraRendu. The concept of the opticalRendu makes sense to me. Yes, I agree: You should really use a high quality USB cable to feed your DAC.