Bartok vs Rossini Map 2?

I own a Bartok (W/O HA) and have upgraded with the Rossini clock - a big improvement. The next step in my DCS journey will likely by a Rossini purchase. I haven’t tried the Rossini yet but wanted to know if any other members have compared the Bartok to the Rossini when running MAP 2 as opposed to the higher frequency and higher performance 1 and 3 mappers?

My understanding is that the Bartok classic mapper is not identical to Map 2 in the Rossini, but is very similar with both running at the same frequency - the latter having undergone some coding rationalisation / optimisation however?

Therefore when comparing Bartok classic mapper to Rossini Map 2 the key effects of the second power supply (or more specifically the separation of analog and digital power circuits) should be audible? Has anyone experienced the difference?

1 Like

PS: I was referring to the second power supply in the Rossini. I am aware a second supply is present in the Bartok that comprises the HA but this is dedicated to that task with the analog and digital DA circuits still driven by a single power supply.

What second power supply? The Vivaldi and Rossini upgrades from v.1 ( No choice of mapper - it was more or less what is now Map 2) to v.2 ( adds Map 1 and 3) was firmware only and was delivered over the internet. I wonder how they sent a second power supply and fitted it :slightly_smiling_face:? The analogue and digital power circuits AFAIK have always been separate.

Maps 1 and 3 run at double the speed compared to the original Map algorithm and to Map 2. The ring DAC version in Bartok does not have the ability ( processing power) to run at this speed if I remember Andy McHarg’s comments correctly during the Audiophile Style video.

Everyone with with an up to date Rossini or Vivaldi can compare Map 2 to the alternatives. That is all you need to do . 1 and 3 are better than 2 or dCS would not have introduced them. If you want a dCS DAC that can run the mapping algorithms at the speed of 1 or 3 ( which as all of us who upgraded from the old version should be well aware was a big upgrade; is there anyone out there who still prefers map 2 ?), then you have to have a either Rossini or Vivaldi.

To look at it another way Rossini will sound better than Bartok whichever map you choose as the superiority is not exclusively down to the mapping algorithm. It is a big ingredient but not the whole story. And that fact makes trying to identify subjectively exactly which differences there are between Bartok’s sole map and Rossini map 2 exclusively down to the slightly different coding is impossible as it cannot be audibly separated from the rest of either machine’s performance.

I think the OP is well aware that a firmware update will not magically introduce a new power supply. What the OP was merely trying to communicate to you was that he/she is aware that there are other differences between Bartok and Rossini, like for example a difference in power supply, where Bartok has one for DAC and one for AMP, where Rossini has one for Digital and one for Analogue. Hope this clarifies it for you @PAR

Thanks flying spear you are correct. PAR perhaps my question was not structured well? I will try again.
Take a look inside a Rossini (web photos) and you will see two supply transformers - and two regulation PCB’s each connected to said transformers. In a Bartok there is just one transformer (ignoring the headphone supply) connected to one regulation PCB - i.e. both the analog and digital circuits are powered off the same PCB. The classic mapper in the Bartok and the Map 2 in the Rossini operate at the same frequency. Therefore it should be theoretically possible to make a judgement about the benefits that the separated digital and analog supplies make to the sound, versus one in the Bartok. I am asking if anyone has performed this comparison, and if yes what did they find? E.g. how big a contribution does the the second power supply makes to the Rossini sound - disregarding the well documented benefits when using map1 and map3?

I once read in the comments from dCS (maybe on roon forum) that it is formally possible to release firmware 2.0 for Bartok. Bartok’s processing power is enough to work with 2.0. But until that happens. Apparently this requires Rossini 3.0. Marketing, nothing personal.

I also read that even though Bartok has one power supply, it is not the same as one of Rossini’s power supplies. Perhaps it is more powerful, I don’t know what the difference is.

Shows how much dCS’s success is in their software.

Since posting the original question I have had the opportunity to directly compare the Bartok to the Rossini and this is what i found:

Bartok (classic mapper) ==> Rossini (MAP 2)…… big improvement - better etched, lower noise floor, more low level detail, transients apparently quicker, instrument decay better defined and most important cleaner better defined bass making all music flow more convincingly.

Bartok (classic mapper) + Rossini clock ==> Rossini (MAP 2) without clock ==> Rossini still much better - makes much more convincing music exhibiting much better drive or ‘PRAT’ and with more detail than the Bartok. The Rossini is very good without the help of the clock.

Rossini (MAP 2) ==> Rossini (MAP 2) + Rossini Clock ==> big improvements to soundstage depth and space around instruments.

Rossini (MAP 2). ==>. Rossini MAP 1 / 3 ===> much increased resolution and much wider soundstage. I prefer MAP 3. MAP 1 and 3 allow much greater insight into the way the instruments are being played - for example you can easily hear differences in the way a piano key is being pressed or a guitar string plucked that was less distinct through MAP2 and very faint / missing through the Bartok. Piano works now sound sublime through the Rossini.

Rossini (MAP 3) + Rossini clock ==> Seriously good sound.

The Bartok is very good while the Rossini takes you a very long way further along the same trajectory (nature) and will increase your enjoyment of music significantly. I was very impressed and have now invested in my own unit.


Thanks Quest. Yes the improvements that dCS engineer are indeed audible as are the gains from going up the hierarchy of products.