PS Audio Music Server In The Pipeline?


#441

Once a DVD is written into the Kaleidescape ecosystem it becomes “region free” and you don’t need the physical disc stored in a disc vault. You can store it in a shoe box if you want (that is, for “grandfathered” systems like mine). For BR playback the physical disc needs to be present in the system somewhere (disc vault or player).


#442

Thanks. It certainly gets complicated.


#443

Actually they make the complicated simple. Whenever I read Roon, MQA, NAS, DSD, FLAC, JRiver etc etc in posts here, and all the difficulties people have with everything, I just quiver with dread. I have no difficulties at all. Bit for bit perfect copy of CD via coax to DAC. It works every time, nothing to think about, and it sounds great.

I’m just itching to get my Magico M3 speakers so I can hear how good a CD can sound. 10 week wait.


#444

Excellent point; for the end-user it is simple.


#445

Can I ask a dumb question? I sorta don’t have the time at the moment to invest in a lot of the work in the trenches you all are doing with regard to the Octave ecosystem. Thanks to all for that, BTW : )

Would I be correct in assuming that we won’t know (that in fact no one can know) how this thing will sound until it’s built and the software is sorted (since, like Roon, it “plays” via the software, which contributes SQ to it)? Or are there prototypes that are approximating it?


#446

That is sort of a correct assumption. The software helps us navigate and the hardware supports it. That said, the actual server architecture has much to do with how it will sound. Take Roon for example. It’s no secret I don’t like the sound of the Roon server. It sounds the same on every piece of hardware I’ve heard it on. So, there’s a combo thing going on here.

I have the first bit of hardware/software being prepped for me now and am excited to give it a whirl in Music Room One. Fingers crossed it doesn’t need too much more elbow grease to get it right.


#447

Thanks Paul. That should be both exciting and scary. I certainly wouldn’t bet against it. A few years back, if you had told me a that you were going to build something that would Make CDs Great Again, I would’ve said, “Yeah…uh…right”.

Seems like we’re just at the start of a new paradigm with regard to how we serve up and ingest our favorite dish!


#448

I am following the development of Octave with great interest.

While appreciate many are enthralled with Roon’s interface, I do not like its sound as I have previously noted. The interface is not sufficiently interesting to bother with trying to overcome the sound deficit.

However, a truly useful interface for those of us who listen to classical, coupled with excellent sound, is compelling.


#449

I can see where having a good metadata scheme for classical would be really helpful. I kinda went off the genre for the most part a while back, so just being able to easily browse albums by composer/band/player/title would suffice for me. But I was into opera for long enough (using primarily a server) that I feel your pain.


#450

Addressing classical music is remarkably complicated. For example, I have over thirty recordings of Mozart’s Requiem. There are six different editions of the work (and probably more in the future as musicologists continue their work). I have multiple recordings of most editions. There are many different orchestras, conductors, soloists, etc.

I currently have them organized as a folder for Mozart -> Requiem -> (each edition) -> conductor & orchestra. But I would really enjoy server software that automatically tags and easily allows me to search by soloist, orchestra, conductor, edition, etc. I can currently search the metadata I have entered, but it was a great deal of work tagging everything.


#451

I’m very much looking forward to Octave developments but for anyone that didn’t enjoy Roon 24 months ago or even 12 months ago, you really should re-try it now.

They’ve made optimisations to their RAAT protocol and in reducing RoonServer’s CPU usage along the way. The resulting SQ now is not the same as 24 months ago and even 12 months ago.

It still may not be to your liking but worth a re-try.


#452

Did that myself, twice, and still couldn’t bring myself to like it SQ wise. I still prefer JRiver.


#453

I find it interesting to look at other companies developing servers. One that is getting a lot of praise is Innuos. Interesting that they are finding that all the traditional things that would matter for other components also matter in the server platform. Example, cabinet resonances, power supplies, regulators… even developing special footers.

#everythingmatters


#454

Paul

Have you had an opportunity to listen to the new hardware yet?

magicknow


#455

Before Paul answers I just want to dial in a few thoughts.

I’d also be interested in the differences i.e. between a Bridge III and the Octave server (assumed the digital lens technology is the same)

I think as so often (like comparing physical disc to streaming) it depends what exactly is compared. I’m sure Octave will be clearly better than Bridge III with NAS and network components connected to the same power line as the equipment and without isolation.

But what if the HiFi setup including Bridge III was on a separate power line and therefore quite isolated from all all network components and NAS, which are on the normal house circuit…and if the network connection to the Bridge is galvanically isolated, too…will the Octave server still be noticeably better or better at all?

I know, there’s a lot of isolation done inside the server and there’s a bigger power supply etc. But it has to be…as Octave, harddrive, network components and additional computing is in the same circuit as the audio components (as it’s a one box unit). Plus there’s add. cabling necessary between server and DAC. So even if it’s internally well isolated, the total separation of everything except the Bridge from the audio cirquit‘s power line could even be an advantage of such a Bridge configuration?

That’s why I think when later we hear how much better the Octave server is, we have to look at the exact configurations being compared. At least I’d be interested in a comparison with a sophisticated Bridge setup, not just with the simplest one.


#456

Next week is the rumor.


#457

One of the big differences between Bridge III and the Octave server will be the Digital Lens. There will be a simply CPLD version in Bridge III but in the server (we need a name for this - any ideas?) nearly half the internal real estate is consumed with a new type of Lens we’ve been working on for some time. It has galvanically isolated everything including the power supply. The new server will sound significantly better than the Bridge III in the same DAC.


#458

Ah I see! So far I thought the isolation and power supply would be the main difference and the lens technology was about the same. Will be interesting how much difference the streaming device makes.


#459

Have not heard much on Octave’s progress recently.
Can we have an update?
Thanks.
Bruce


#460

Will the new Octave server be able to play SACD like the DMP but just not store it to the hard drive? Or will you have to have a DMP and a Octave Server? To play SACD and CD, etc?