We'd like some help with Octave


When I first heard that the Bridge III would include a scaled-down Octave server,I was thinking that you’d then attach an external drive via its USB port (assuming it has one). Otherwise it’d have to use its Ethernet or WiFi to reach a NAS somewhere.

Or am I just missing something here …


All these questions indicate how difficult a software project OCTAVE will be. It must be soaking up a lot of programming effort and time.


I presume you were anticipating using a Bridge III with Octave streamer functions into a Directstream DAC.
Even if the server functions could be engineered into the small Bridge III, I wouldn’t think the performance could compare to a dedicated Octave chassis with improved parts and power supplies etc.


I am not sure about this. I’ll check with the developers. Key and central to Octave is the system employed for cataloging in Musicbrainz which is the main source we use for tagging.


It’s a variant of MySQL.


We are planning on SSD drives for the ones that are built in. MQA is a function built into DACs not streamers. The exception being our network Bridge input (not a streamer). We’re now trying to see if we can incorporate MQA into Octave’s Digital Lens board, but since we don’t know what DAC you’re connecting to it probably won’t fly with the MQA folks.


There will be a USB 3.0 port on Bridge III that will permit you to connect an external drive for storage, yes.


I appreciate it is difficult to honor a user’s tags, as well as tags from other programs, and fit them into the defined tags of one specific source.

My hope is this one source is exceedingly complete, and Octave allows the addition of custom tags for that information which is not captured.


I am that customer profile that doesn’t need internal ripping and perhaps several lees features but still want the performance / sonic Octave performance below $6000. Will the later Octaves with reduced cost still have solid-state internal drive storage available, at least as an option?


That’s a tough one. The ripper itself does not add much to the cost. It is the other hardware that contribute to the cost. Lesser models are likely to save money by eliminating the hard drive and reducing the complexity of the output board. It will be easy enough to add an external USB based SSD however. We’re trying to figure out use cases of what people want to do so all this is quite helpful in knowing what people actually want to do and how.


The wish list, 2 TB of internal SS drive storage, USB and as PDF outputs and sound quality that exceeds my Mac Mini server. I was looking for company to produce something that would finally accomplish this in one chassis.
My goals, and assumedly other audiophiles as well, are to simplify and eliminate as many chassises, boxes, USB de-crapper‘s, power supplies, computers, out board hards drives, cables etc. I want a one box solution, so any outboard music storage of any type works against that goal. Another twist to outboard storage is that these devices need better outboard power supplies (more plugs more wires were complexity) plus each drive sounds different from manufacture to manufacture, compounding additional madness. With all due respect, I don’t understand why accomplishing all of above comes at near 8 times the retail of a higher performance Mac Mini monitor keyboard etc. Maybe a stripped down unit with internal storage, a “one chassis solution” but perhaps a less expensive display, as most users will use pads for controllers.


Have you looked at the Aries G2? Still probably doesn’t fit your "pricing wish’ but it does exist.


My impression was, that the main difference between the Server HW and the bridge is the ripper and the existence of internal harddrives instead of connected NAS, correct?

Sure you will have a separate power supply and maybe small other improvements inside the Server HW, but isn’t it mainly that aforementioned difference?


Yes and no. The core of Octave is of course the computer and software but then added to that is an extensive Digital lens. In the big server that takes up half the space of the chassis and is completely galvanically isolated from everything including the internal computer which is connected via fiber. We went to elaborate means at isolation of power supplies, digital signals, etc. It’s a true tour de force inside the Octave server. But, as you can imagine, we cannot do that inside a single PCB that slides into the DS or DSJ. We’ll do our best to build a Lens with a CPLD or FPGA at the output but there’s no way that’s going to come close to the sound quality of the big one. Just physically cannot.


There are many such devices, such as the Bryston BDP.


Thanks! Then I think indeed a flattened version without ripper and internal drives would be interesting for those who prefer to use their NAS or who have bigger libraries than fitting on such a single drive inside…who prefer better sound quality than with the bridge but don’t need the rest.

I think at least alone for the internal drive of the Octave HW, with the multiplying sales factor I’d pay a few hundred $, right?

The sound quality comparison of Bridge III vs. Octave HW will be very interesting!


I would agree on the internal SSD being optional, so one could add their own and cut the unit cost. I assume it will be easy to install, so eliminating an extra cost for many who already have their own HD makes sense to me.


I prefer external USB drives, powered off of USB, such as the Western Digital Passport. This drive is my current favorite; it works exceedingly well and I have never had a failure.


I love the direction in which this is heading.
I plan to rip all of my CDs onto it as well as ripping all of my vinyl.
The isolations, build quality, 2TB SSD, fantastic software are just what the doctor ordered!
Keep up the good (developmental) work.
It is great to see that you are taking your time and not taking any short cuts.
Looking forward to it.


How do those who have no need of more than 2GB and who want to avoid add. Hardware like NAS, want to back up their library without similar add. HW?

I still have to understand the ease of the whole one box concept without loss

However I understand that in such a one box server it’s not necessary to configure a storage device within the library SW…that’s an advantage to non IT affine folks.

My other point is…a pure perfectly isolated separate streamer could probably be much cheaper for those with own storage and no noteworthy continuous ripping demand, than a probably ~6k all in one box.

But I also understand, that’s what the Bridge is for and that there’s nothing planned inbetween.