Not only would this demand the resources to support two different protocols, PS Audio would still be facing all of the inherent problems with basing a product on a third-party’s whims.
Given what I have experienced is Roon’s compromised sound and PS Audio’s track record, i expect Octave to sound better than Roon. If additionally Octave’s interface is at least as good (PS Audio promises better), Roon users will have an incentive to switch.
I don’t agree with you on this one. I think it would be a great benefit for PSA to offer bridge III for Roon and Octave. Will it require more resources, yes it will. Will Octave sound better than Roon on the Bridge III? Who knows. I see this as a benefit to PSA’s business.
Hi Paul, I have a question regarding BridgeIII. I use BII, and the sound is different depending on which cat cable is used, if opto isolators are used or not, if these opto isolators are mains powered or battery powered, in otherwords we still have the age old problem of things not sounding ‘correct’ in digital terms but affected by analog issues, presumably by emi/rfi issues down the cable - through the dac and out to the preamp/ power amp.
My question is: will there be any technology in BIII that will solve or reduce this issue so that it doesn’t matter what network cable I use between my network and the BIII/dac, it will sound the same, the same sound that you hear when you craft your software update to a particular sound you hear.
I can’t guarantee it but I hope so. I suspect what’s going on is ground loops and noise and to the extent we can successfully galvanically isolate the inputs then this issue should go away. Fingers crossed.
About optical isolation, how about adding an interface like SFP to integrate media convertor? I am willing to pay more in order to minimize the no. of device for better isolation
I don’t agree with you on this one. I think it would be a great benefit for PSA to offer bridge III for Roon and Octave. Will it require more resources, yes it will. Will Octave sound better than Roon on the Bridge III? Who knows. I see this as a benefit to PSA’s business.
I agree with Bryan. Why not offer Bridge devices/upgrades that have technical improvements but cater to customer needs/interests -- one for Roon/JRiver and one for Octave. They have the same platform and wouldn't the effort to upgrade Bridge II be more incremental (i.e., less troublesome) since the technology is functioning? Anyway, who am i to comment on technical production issues?
Bridge II owners that choose not to go to Octave are being left out of a sound quality upgrade path. I certainly thought there would be a Bridge III that would improve on sound quality and functionality for my needs. As described, Bridge III is not really an advance of Bridge II since it doesn’t have at all the same functionality. Rather, it is a new means of networking that requires investment in Octave to work.
About optical isolation, how about adding an interface like SFP to integrate media convertor? I am willing to pay more in order to minimize the no. of device for better isolation
Why not offer Bridge devices/upgrades that have technical improvements but cater to customer needs/interests – one for Roon/JRiver and one for Octave. They have the same platform and wouldn’t the effort to upgrade Bridge II be more incremental (i.e., less troublesome) since the technology is functioning? Anyway, who am i to comment on technical production issues?
Bridge II owners that choose not to go to Octave are being left out of a sound quality upgrade path. I certainly thought there would be a Bridge III that would improve on sound quality and functionality for my needs. As described, Bridge III is not really an advance of Bridge II since it doesn’t have at all the same functionality. Rather, it is a new means of networking that requires investment in Octave to work.
It's always a possibility at this early date but there are currently no plans to do this. I think it's instructive to understand why. Each device you describe is a huge project. Take for example the one you wish to be like Bridge II only better. Bridge II is built around a third party module. We take what is given to us by this module, then handle the signal ourselves through the Digital Lens. Bridge II took more than a year to develop and program. We cannot control the third party module it is based upon. To make further improvements we would have to design our own core module from scratch. The company we buy from, Convers, have been working with us for two years and they have invested nearly twice that. It would take us a minimum of a year and likely two to build Bridge III that replaces exactly the functions of Bridge II only better.
When we looked at this reality in our engineering group we listed all the plus and minus attributes of each approach. It was clear to us that the Bridge II architecture, which is based upon the UPnP/DLNA library has reached the end of its capabilities. There are so many limiting factors in this architecture that we have to work around that we made the decision to move forward with an entirely new architecture that frees our engineers to move into the next generation of streaming architecture. Without the shackles presented by DLNA standards, we can set our own standards for packets of any form to travel around your home unhindered.
Lastly, consider that UPnP/DLNA’s architecture demands a compatible server and controller to work. That places us at the mercy of JRiver and the others that work in this limiting structure - or design our own server controller with the same restrictions. That was a clear signal to us it’s time to move on.
We’re a decent size company. But not so big as to be able to afford to support two paths at the same time - especially when one of those paths is a dinosaur waiting to die. I made the decision to move on into the future where the sun is shining and prospects are bright.
Hi Paul, I know this is way off topic now, but I think this is what bighead1707 meant, a lot of people including me get much cleaner sound using these to isolate network noise. If something like this was built in, then it would be a more elegant solution
@Paul: will it still be possible to use MinimServer using the Bridge III? Or will provide PSA a software based music server with pretty much the same functionality?
It might be hard to get our collective heads around how Octave is going to work in Bridge III, In the way you are currently thinking about this Minimserver handles the control and organizational matters while the Bridge handles the playback functions. All that changes with Octave. No longer will you need a separate server like MinimServer because all that functionality is handled by Octave.
With Bridge III and Octave, all you’ll need is a way to control and manage things which can be handled simply through a web browser or a mobile device.
You also have GBIC that came first, but those have a bigger footprint and are currently replaced by SFP's. SFP is very common for industrial network products but rarely seen in the home audio segment. If I see this in Octave (where usage should be justified) I would immediatly think that these guys knows their business.
I would rather like to see an OEM version of an USB isolator from Intona built in: JCAT USB Isolator | JPLAY
however using an I2s link will render this a secondary option.
Regardless of how Octave is ultimately configured, I would definitely wait to see what the esteemed reviewers say about it, versus the alternatives, before I considered a changeover via Bridge iii. Elk has indicated that he feels Roon’s sound quality is somehow compromised. As for myself, I carefully set up my Ethernet system and located my components as recommended by Roon, and Roon plus DSJ/Huron provides me with SQ that equals or exceeds anything I’ve ever heard, digital or analog (including my Well Tempered/Koetsu Rosewood setup).
So I would read with interest the reviews and comparative auditions reported upon by such publications as Absolute Sound, Stereophile, etc., before I formed a conclusion about the merits of Octave versus the alternatives and before I acted on it. And of course, user interface and ergonomics would also be a big factor.
I once had a Koetsu Urushi Vermillion, which shouldn’t be that different to a Rosewood. I’d say these cartridges are the exact opposite of most digital sources in good or bad aspects. I wonder that you compare them at all If you like the DS better (which I can understand) I’d try a different cartridge in your stead
David Bernat said
Elk has indicated that he feels Roon's sound quality is somehow compromised.
I am far from alone. Others here have opined the same, as well as many who have expressed this elsewhere.
PS Audio’s expressed goal is to beat Roon’s sound. Given PS Audio’s achievements in sound quality to date I think they have a good chance in succeeding.
David Bernat said
Elk has indicated that he feels Roon's sound quality is somehow compromised.
I am far from alone. Others here have opined the same, as well as many who have expressed this elsewhere.
PS Audio’s expressed goal is to beat Roon’s sound. Given PS Audio’s achievements in sound quality to date I think they have a good chance in succeeding.
Elk - we all hope your sentiment is correct! Because in the end, it’s all about moving the state-of-the-art forward in terms of audio technology… PS Audio certainly sits at the edge of the envelope, SQ-wise, when it comes to digital hardware and Ted’s superb accomplishments with the software that currently supports PSA’s FPGA digital processing. So let’s see what they deliver with Octave!
I once had a Koetsu Urushi Vermillion, which shouldn’t be that different to a Rosewood. I’d say these cartridges are the exact opposite of most digital sources in good or bad aspects. I wonder that you compare them at all If you like the DS better (which I can understand) I’d try a different cartridge in your stead
I did, over the years. I just happened to like the Koetsu’s best. If course, this is all very subjective and dependent upon associated components (for me, Spectral…now Conrad Johnson and Headamp, and Thiel…now Proac and Audeze)
If you like the DS better (which I can understand) I’d try a different cartridge in your stead 
If you like the DS better (which I can understand) I’d try a different cartridge in your stead