But is it a streamer and not a renderer?
The naming and marketing of computer based music system components is tricky. Many of the terms are used inconsistently and interchangeably: streamer, player, server, controller, renderer, network audio player, etc.
I find it striking Auralic is referring to the Aries as a “bridge” and it is offered as a “streaming bridge.” A reasonable description, but very different from the PS Audio Bridge.
It is almost up to each manufacturer to define their own specific environment and nomenclature.
But they both decode don’t they ? So wouldn’t bridge work for both ?
Sort of; there is some similarity. But the differences easily outweigh the shared.
And hence the problem with the industry’s nomenclature.
Also in my experience it is quite impossible to play HD flac 24/192 files without hiccups and ticks by using a bridge.
Yesterday I convert these files to WAV and it works in my situation the best; I think that with 192k FLAC the bridge horse power is maxed out, so any network timing issues might show up as pops.
I’ll hope that the Bridge II solves those problems.
It should, yes.
In my understanding if FLAC is converted to WAV with same bit depth there should not be any difference in sound quality. Isn’t that true ? That’s what I do using Minim (flac:wav24) and I didn’t hear any sonic difference as such.
As I guess when Minim server is converting flac to wav24 it is doing the heavy lifting of the necessary conversion (happens in the NAS which Minim runs on). So bridge does not need to do that extra work and should be fine with its available limited resource (I believe the memory). Right ?
Regards,
Sourav
Paul McGowan said We are hoping for December, yes. Should retail for $1,000 USD in the States.
1K$, for this price it should suport DSD128 DoP…
Again I only use the bridge 99.99% of my time and the optical .01% of the time, I don’t care about gapless there are inexpensive solutins to this all ready. The DS output everything at DSD128! the new bridge will only make sense if it suport DSD128 at the input.
My 2 cents, I don’t agree about gapless being unimportant.
@tony22 I don’t say is not important, I know how important it is an I got a solution to this thanks to this forum a long time a go. What I say is, I will not pay 1K$ for just gap less and some improvement and no support to DSD128, when I consider it the most logical upgrade to the bridge.
Agreed. In today’s market, for $1K it should do all of this stuff.
Sourav Mazumder said In my understanding if FLAC is converted to WAV with same bit depth there should not be any difference in sound quality. Isn't that true ? That's what I do using Minim (flac:wav24) and I didn't hear any sonic difference as such.Sourav, that's basically correct. Some people claim to hear a difference between original WAV (or AIFF) files and the same files converted from FLAC but I'm not one of them. They should be bit-identical and sound the same once converted. Having the NAS or computer doing the conversion of FLAC to WAV does lessen the work-load imposed on the Bridge and should reduce the number of issues and also slightly improve sound quality.As I guess when Minim server is converting flac to wav24 it is doing the heavy lifting of the necessary conversion (happens in the NAS which Minim runs on). So bridge does not need to do that extra work and should be fine with its available limited resource (I believe the memory). Right?
We would all like Bridge II to support DSD128 but I think you’re beating a dead horse. Paul said some time ago that there were too many problems getting streaming to work at 352k, which is what would be needed for double-rate DSD over DoP. My sense is the hardware design is finished and will be limited to 192/24. Those who need higher rates should consider other options, such as the Aries.
While I’m a big supporter of Paul and PS Audio, I’m wondering if without double rate DSD - and at the expected price - if Bridge II might not be as good a solution as something like the Aeries. Would really hate to add yet another box to my system, though.
I agree completely Tony. But I’ll probably still get a Bridge II. I don’t have much DSD128 material at this point and I can always play that over USB (at least as I have things currently set-up–it would be nice to move my computer farther away).
I agree with Tony and Steve. I’ve always planned on getting a Bridge II, since I’d prefer not to add an additional box. But now that I have an outstanding DAC (the DS, of course) that, thanks to firmware upgrades, I will probably keep for a long time, I’d like to get a streaming solution that will have an equal longevity. I remember Paul’s comments so I understand that the limitation of Bridge II to single-rate DSD exists for good reasons. At the same time it’s frustrating to know that the DS can do double-rate but I’m going to buy a streamer (from the same company that makes the DAC) that can’t take advantage of that.
Of course, right now there isn’t much double-rate DSD available, and it’s expensive. But I did buy a few tracks in both single- and double-rate to compare. The double-rate versions were a little smoother and more natural, more analog-sounding. Not a huge difference but, I think, perceptible to anyone with some listening experience and equipment such as the DS. I thought the single-rate versions were quite good and was not expecting much difference, if any. So I hope there will be more double-rate DSD coming out, since it seems worthwhile (based on the limited testing I’ve done) for someone who values non-fatiguing, natural sound. (The tracks I used for testing were recorded at double-rate, not upsampled.)
One could always purchase 2x DSD files and make a second copy in 1x for Bridge2 streaming.
I could not swear to any obvious difference in SQ.
I am playing 2x via the Aries,for now, and it sounds superbe. { Wireless WiFi by the way} At first I thought Aries was perhaps converting to single but the DS says 128 so it must be. Man these 128 files are HUGE!
gordon said One could always purchase 2x DSD files and make a second copy in 1x for Bridge2 streaming.Yes, but I would prefer to take advantage of what the DS can already do.
I could not swear to any obvious difference in SQ.Have you ever compared the exact same recording in 1x and 2x DSD?
For those who would like to try this comparison: the test recording I used was from Blue Coast, a folk singer named Keith Greeninger. If you buy the 1x album Special Event 20 (only $5.00 for four tracks), they will give you the 2x (as originally recorded) if you email them. See this link. Try it and see if you hear what I heard. Reproducing a singer and a guitar would not seem to be as much work for a playback system as a full orchestral recording–there’s a lot more stuff to sort out in the latter. So I was more surprised to hear a difference between the 1x and 2x versions with this recording than I would have been with more complex material, but there it was.
Man these 128 files are HUGE!Yes indeed. It's a good thing that hard drives are bigger and cheaper than they used to be.
How huge is HUGE ?
MB per minute of stereo:
PCM
44/16 10MB
96/24 33MB
192/24 66MB
352.8/24 (DXD) 121MB
DSD
DSD 64 40.4MB
DSD 128 80.8MB