Article: First Listen And A Visit To dCS For The New Bartok

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[jtwrace]

Time to go back for a video factory tour!

[Rt66indierock]

Very cool can't wait to hear more details Saturday night.

[austinpop]

You had me at Class A headphone amp!

[MarkS]

This is an intriguing product. 

[firedog]

Would, of course, be interested to compare to the Rossini+Network Player and see what the difference in SQ for the big difference in price. I'd bet not much. 

[matthias]

I suppose the dCS Network Bridge plus Bartok will outperform the Rossini for less money.

 

Matt

[miguelito]

Nice! Thx Chris. dCS truly cares about the quality of their product AND continued support and evolution. I am very happy to be their customer.

[Lobbster]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

I suppose the dCS Network Bridge plus Bartok will outperform the Rossini for less money.

 

Matt

Does it need a bridge?

 

"the Bartok is a full featured dCS network capable DAC with headphone amp."

 

It seems there are more and more hi end "Network Capable DACs". Hopefully some comparisons will follow. This category is of great interest.

[matthias]

26 minutes ago, Lobbster said:

Does it need a bridge?

 

"the Bartok is a full featured dCS network capable DAC with headphone amp."

 

It seems there are more and more hi end "Network Capable DACs". Hopefully some comparisons will follow. This category is of great interest.

 

No; it does not need a bridge:

But the bridge is better than the streaming board in the Rossini:

So I think if you combine Bartok and bridge you can outperform the Rossini:

Source first rules:

 

Matt

[AMP]

8 minutes ago, matthias said:

But the bridge is better than the streaming board in the Rossini:

 

No, it's not.

 

There is absolutely no reason to use a Bridge with a Rossini or Bartok. There will be no performance gains and some control functionality will be lost.

[matthias]

23 minutes ago, AMP said:

 

No, it's not.

 

There is absolutely no reason to use a Bridge with a Rossini or Bartok. There will be no performance gains and some control functionality will be lost.

 

With the additional Bridge you have a complete separate PS and a higher performing processor with wifi.

 

Matt

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

With the additional Bridge you have a complete separate PS and a higher performing processor with wifi.

 

Matt

Why would a separate power supply, faster processor that's unneeded in the DACs, WiFi, and a conversion to AES or SPDIF before hitting the DAC be beneficial?

[firedog]

Okay, I'll rephrase. It would be interesting to hear someone who auditions the Bartok and Rossini and comments on the SQ difference, and how much. 

[AMP]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

With the additional Bridge you have a complete separate PS and a higher performing processor with wifi.

 

Makes no difference. The CPU on the bridge has the ability to operate at a slightly higher clock frequency, but idle CPU cycles are idle CPU cycles. No impact on sound quality. The separate power supply has negligible impact in this particular application. The power supply in the Bartok is considerably more robust than what's in the bridge.

 

Wi-Fi isn't enabled in the bridge and likely won't be.

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Why would a separate power supply, faster processor that's unneeded in the DACs, WiFi, and a conversion to AES or SPDIF before hitting the DAC be beneficial?

 

It's not. It's adding complexity for the sake of adding complexity. No real gains, some losses, and considerably more money. We'd love to sell more Bridges, but we aren't going to lie to prospective customers and endorse this type of configuration. It's silly.

[AMP]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Okay, I'll rephrase. It would be interesting to hear someone who auditions the Bartok and Rossini and comments on the SQ difference, and how much.

 

It's not an especially valid comparison right now as Rossini is due for an update which will have a significant impact on its sonic performance.

[firedog]

22 minutes ago, AMP said:

 

It's not an especially valid comparison right now as Rossini is due for an update which will have a significant impact on its sonic performance.

Thanks. Appreciate your participation here.

[The Computer Audiophile]

27 minutes ago, AMP said:

 

It's not an especially valid comparison right now as Rossini is due for an update which will have a significant impact on its sonic performance.

 

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

Thanks. Appreciate your participation here.

If I'm not mistaken, this update is software only. Rossini owners needn't worry about out of date hardware. 

[matthias]

@AMP

What exactly are the hardware differences between Bartok and Rossini?

Thanks

 

Matt

[AMP]

14 minutes ago, matthias said:

What exactly are the hardware differences between Bartok and Rossini?

 

Chris covered it in his write-up. In terms of hardware Bartok has a less complex power supply and a less complex chassis.

 

The real difference will be in the software. As our DAC architecture is software-defined we can realize performance gains through a simple firmware update. In the case of Bartok the software is very similar to Rossini as it stands today. Rossini will get an update to apply some of the algorithms from Vivaldi.

[matthias]

36 minutes ago, AMP said:

 

Chris covered it in his write-up. In terms of hardware Bartok has a less complex power supply and a less complex chassis.

 

The real difference will be in the software. As our DAC architecture is software-defined we can realize performance gains through a simple firmware update. In the case of Bartok the software is very similar to Rossini as it stands today. Rossini will get an update to apply some of the algorithms from Vivaldi.

 

IIUC, if Bartok receives the same software update as Rossini the performance differences would be negligible.

Very interesting,  as software is much cheaper than hardware (Audirvana, HQPlayer for example)

 

Matt

[wdw]

2 hours ago, AMP said:

 

Chris covered it in his write-up. In terms of hardware Bartok has a less complex power supply and a less complex chassis.

 

The real difference will be in the software. As our DAC architecture is software-defined we can realize performance gains through a simple firmware update. In the case of Bartok the software is very similar to Rossini as it stands today. Rossini will get an update to apply some of the algorithms from Vivaldi.

 

We have the Bridge with AES out to a pair of Devialet monoblocks, sourced from a ROON Nucleus, and is it so easy to hear how much better it is compared to a direct ethernet out from the same ROON endpoint.  

In this case, it is in the addition of a second stage between source and playback that improves the signal.

I can only  imagine how good the Bartok can be  but suspect it will be brilliant.

 

[KDinsmore]

I want to know how headphones sound out of this.

[Le Concombre Masqué]

23 hours ago, matthias said:

 

IIUC, if Bartok receives the same software update as Rossini the performance differences would be negligible.

Very interesting,  as software is much cheaper than hardware (Audirvana, HQPlayer for example)

 

Matt

yeah ; and I could be as enthusiast about my cheap TEAC, albeit HQP fed, and even add a note stressing soundstage effect and instrumentation being  a jewel case to Beth Gibbons' vocals. 

[matthias]

Some additional info about Bartok can be found here:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/dcs-bartok-streaming-dac-hp-amp/47510

 

Matt