I’m not sure I understand the difference between a streamer and an end point. Could you please detail this?
If you would build Bridge III into future DAC‘s without card, that means you’d have the disadvantages of a noisy streamer (as Ted mentioned) non removable in the DAC (as with the jr.)…so that others with separate streamers can’t get rid of it?
Im sorry I didn’t get it how you feature Roon when your streamers inside Octave or Bridge won’t support it.
I must say I’m a bit concerned too. Sounds like the new Octave will be a combination of the Perfect Stream Memory player and a Bridge III using the Octave software. Most likely at a cost above what the Memory player sold for.
Just my opinion but I think most users here are looking for a streamer like unit that can do Octave but also Roon perhaps with a I2S connection at a price below what the DMP sold for without the drive that likely doubles the costs.
After a few beers it might be a good idea to have a designated disc stuffer around.
Thanks for the understanding. We know we can’t make everyone happy. But, what we can do is ensure that those coming along for the ride are going to be happy.
Yes, all this can be confusing. The current Bridge II, for example, is a Roon end point - like a lot of companies. This simply means we’ve installed a bit of code that is kind of like DLNA or, if that’s too technical, it’s code that presents itself on the network.
When a computer running Roon’s server goes out onto that same network, it looks for any end points that are advertising their services. When it finds one it connects in what we call a handshake. This is when Roon shows you it discovered a device and it is
called a PS Audio DAC. You choose it and now a link is made.
Roon’s servers do all the work of managing the library and at the end of the process, connect a memory location (of where music is stored or streamed) to the end point. You hear music (it’s a little more complicated than that but essential;y that’s
the deal).
The end point is the rendering device. It converts the digital stream into a form the DAC is happy with etc.
A streamer is an end point, plus a control point, plus a server. You need all three in any setup to get connected. In the Roon example, Roon supplies the server and the control point. The end point is the renderer or player.
If, for example, you used MConnect and the Bridge, MConnect is the control point, the Bridge supplies the server and the renderer (player).
Last, the server is what ties everything together and is why it sounds differently. Control points don’t affect sound. Servers and renderers do.
We will have the same great integration for Tidal and Qobuz as does Roon. What that looks like is simple. Octave and Roon both understand that you just want to access one big library and so there’s really no distinction (other than an indicator) of where it’s
coming from. So, for example, when you browse Octave for Beatles, you see the entire collection of what’s in your library and Tidal’s (or whatever). You don’t have to search only Tidal or only your library. It’s all just one big library. If you’re a member
of both Qobuz and Tidal, you’ll see Abbey Road (for example) and then when you choose that you’ll see it’s available from Tidal, Qobuz and your library. You can play from that one page any version you wish.
We get it. Truly. And, we too have a dedicated team of designers and programmers (as they do) that have spent the last 3 years building this amazing platform. They are separate from the hardware team building Octave’s guts. People don’t know (unless
they’ve come here for a tour), but our engineering department has grown to about 17 strong.
We’re investing like drunken sailors. The fruits of our labors will emerge in 2020.
Thanks much Paul, really!
So Bridge II is just endpoint while Bridge III using the built in Octave server will be endpoint and server. And an end point always means it’s also a renderer doing processing like Bridge II. So if you offer DAC‘s with non removable end points, this is an obsolete part and possible noise inducer within the DAC for those with external streamers if I’m correct…or you make it removable as a card, just as you decide.
And I understood you optionally offer a Roon or an Octave endpoint but not both in one…so kinda 2 Bridge versions? But Octave server will only be an Octave endpoint.
What about a third uPnP endpoint or combine it with the Roon endpoint? Just kidding, I know you won’t 
Best of luck Paul, as a programmer I know this is NOT an easy task. Apple with thousands of engineers are miserably failing at it with their latest Apple Music disasters, and for now, only Roon seems to get the UI, music playing and usability right. I generally believe specialists would probably do the best job as that’s all they do, so wishing your folks the same success so we have alternatives.
Paul I know PS Audio can do it. Although I see Roon grabbing all the publicity right now. Obviously they have the advantage of having a working system at this time.
PS Audio Octave can likely be as good or better than Roon. My worry is that Roon has far more resources to throw at making Roon a successful operating system.
What is there to go on that leads one to believe that Octave will be a better system than Roon?
I guess it’s for the same reason why Apple equipment is operating more reliable than Windows or Android. Integrated, proprietary HW/SW.
I like the HW/SW in one companies control.
T+A and Roon will fix this for sure, they acknowledge to have an issue and promise to fix it.
My worries about Octave:
Why would PS Audio be able to get Cover Arts right in such a complex environment as Octave? The PS Audio Direct Stream US$ 6k equipment still struggles with displaying Cover Arts of music libraries even when Cover Arts are embedded in the music files? See other threads about this topic: these are issues PS Audio claims would be too complex to resolve without compromising SQ, so years after release of the Direct Stream equipment the Cover Art still seems not to be fixed.
So like anything it is always a compromise. HW/SW on one hand has the potential to enable great integration, but on the other hand whether that integration will work? (Direct Stream) or offer the features you need? (lack of Apples support of high res files or even red book CD downloads/streams) remains to be seen.
I am glad I still have my turntable and CD Player with the Cover Art in my hands.
I’m also frustrated that I can’t play DSD gapless with the Bridge after all these years…but this is not only an issue with uPNP for PSA, but also for others every now and then. I guess with Octave they will be able to get it right because it’s in their hands.
Hi Jazznut, Hope you are right, that is why I keep being interested. I know there comes a time I will want to abandon my Apple Music / Bit Perfect arrangement and perhaps Octave (Stellar when proven that it works) will prompt me to make the switch.
It’s a good question, but to be honest, it’s not a competition. We’re not in a race. Roon is a great program run by great people. They deserve a major seat at the table. Our models are just different. We don’t think that hardware and software should be separate,
nor do we believe in the model of paying a monthly fee to use your music system. I understand that’s the way the world is going and I get why. It’s just not the way we’re going.
As an Adobe user, I pay a monthly fee to access Photoshop and Illustrator. Their pitch is similar to Roon’s. I get the latest greatest always improving product. That product from Adobe “runs the same” on Windows or Mac, so “don’t worry about the
hardware”. Only, that’s just not true. Photoshop on the Mac runs a hell of a lot different than on Windows. And it also depends on the model and config of the machine itself.
The combination of hardware and software matter.
Roon’s idea is to get as many Hi-Fi manufacturers to include their end point in their products as possible. You rent the Roon software, run it on your computer somewhere in the house, and then buy whatever Hi-Fi hardware floats your boat. In their
view, hardware shouldn’t matter. Think of it like Microsoft’s Windows. You buy whatever hardware you please and then run Windows (and hope you like the latest upgrades and changes to hardware and operating systems over time).
That system works for some, just not for us. We don’t like the idea of requiring a computer, nor the vagaries of dealing with upgrades and differences in hardware. Playing music throughout the home should be an easy, seamless endeavor that users
can rely upon for performance, sound quality, and user experience.
To us, software and hardware are linked together in a performance dance. We are confident that built as a system, we can deliver the best product possible. We know software impacts sound quality (which is why some people like the sound of JRiver
over Roon, or Audirvana, etc.). We know hardware does too (that’s kind of a no brainer). We also know that together, these two critical systems and their interfaces with the outside world determine the final outcome of what we hear in our systems.
So, to answer part of your original question as to what makes us believe Octave can be the better system, our 45 years of designing and building some of the best sounding high-end audio products in the world speak for themselves when it comes
to knowing how to squeeze every ounce of performance out of a system. (And we believe it
is a system)
But while sound quality is critical, a music management system’s success is mostly dependent on the user interface. And that’s perhaps the heart of your question. How easy/fun/intuitive is it to navigate through your library? Does the system engage
you with the artists and music, or do you struggle to even play something? Roon does a great job of making music fun again. It helps you find new music, it brings back the joys we once had reading the backs of album covers, and it’s intuitive. Octave will
strive to be all those things and more. Will it be as good? Like anything, you’ll like some features of Octave better and some you won’t like as well.
For those who find sonic performance important I think Octave will be the right choice. We can guarantee a consistent level of performance and user experience over an entire range of hardware that will eventually stretch from a few hundred dollars
to a $50K AN1 loudspeaker. And there will be no monthly fees or lifetime licenses.
That’s what we bring to the table.
Monthly subscription sucks, as does faffing about with software, at least when it comes to a music system. Give me plugs and cables and buttons that move every time;)
Hi Paul what is the word on Octave hardware?
Have you been able to listen to it yet, what will you use as a reference to compare sound quality?
magicknow
One could look at it as Roon leaves the HW to companies that builds better HW. I see Roon’s expertise as managing music, not building an all in one solution like what you are building.
Paying Roon for their SW is the same as buying SW from PSA which is integrated in the server. One could look at it as renting or buying it outright I guess. At the end of the day Roon and PSA need to make money.
I have an open mind about Octave. I would probably not be an early adopter though unless the price point (discount) drove that.
Paul, no monthly fees or lifetime fees?
With what budget does PS Audio intent to keep the servers powered, maintained, replaced and secured? I realize nothing comes for free, this is no criticism. I hate license fees too, that is why I purchased the Affinity ArtWork programs by the way.
But if I buy into a rather proprietary system I want to make sure that it keeps serving. Above mentioned costs are rather for real. I might not have an abundance of money, but do realize Octave can not come entirely for free and am willing to contribute my share if I use it. Hence my question.
