Hi dCS team !
Do you already think about a Christmas present for your dear customers 
A new release of the Mosaic software would be very appreciated…
Any hint already ?
Best regards.
Ch.
1 Like
We’re targeting at least 3 releases before the end of the year and, no, we aren’t going to tell you what we have planned. That would ruin the surprise 
Seriously, though we’re already working on the second of those releases. The first is in testing and should ship in the coming weeks. We may or may not get to the third before the end of the year.
6 Likes
You never stop working…thanks for this very quick answer.
Santas little helper whispered in my ear that it is possible to squeeze out a few drops of increased SQ performance on the NWB , because it is the same main board and FPGA as the rest of the dCS streaming units, but slightly restricted script.
I’m thinking instead on lay down to much effort to increment more functions on an already good working App 
1 Like
Maybe you prepared the firmware 1.9 for BartĂłk, which is very close to Rossini 2.0?
1 Like
Well, eventhough I wish a merry Christmas to Bartok owners…I would prefer that they prepare a present for all customers (Mosaic) and if they have to choose customers, then I hope they do something for Vivaldi Dac owners …that’s a true Christmas when having kids complaining about the gift they expected and they didn’t get 
1 Like
Ok, I agree on Rossini 2.5, Vivaldi 3.0 also and Mosaic new version for all ))
1 Like
I think I also like @Beolab wrote could see my self enjoying even better sound from the NWB 
1 Like
Time is running since beginning of October : only 2 months before the 3 releases
There will be a release before the end of the month.
1 Like
Great. But no worry if it comes later, the most important thing is quality over velocity
But thanks a lot for the update.
Hoping for a SQ performance upgrade on the NWB and the rest of the dCS streaming products.
This is because of other cheaper streamers like the Auralic Aries G2 etc are passing by when i have compared a few alternatives in my system.
So don’t wait, open up the “restrictions” would be great!
You seem to have the misconception that we somehow limit the performance of our products through software so that we can release later updates that improve the sound. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.
We engineer our products to deliver the best sound possible. Period. From time to time we may improve on the performance of our hardware and software, but that’s accomplished through continuous engineering improvement not by removing some artificial restriction.
If we come up with a bright idea to improve the performance of the Network Bridge then we’ll explore that, but there is nothing on our current roadmap that specifically addresses the audio performance of the product. By all accounts (and our measurements) it appears that it is a class-defining product in terms of performance just as it is.
3 Likes
Compared at home with a NB, the auralic aris g2 was a disaster : too digital. Their 3 filters helped a bit but creating unbalanced results : you gain in some case and loose in another. Auralic is a great piece of technology where music is missing…
So dCS have published false info where they in a few articles have described that the Bartok for instance is an slight restricted Rossini in the ring dac wich does not use full potential, this is controlled by the FPGA with less advanced algorithm code.
Then Bartok only got one power supply where the Rossini got one for the digital and one for the analog circuit side.
In the same way Rossini is a scale down from Vivaldi.
The NWB is also a scale down version and got an FPGA that is controlled by Firmware and got a slight less advanced code from what the articles is saying, and only one power supply.
This info Andrew is not made up by me, it is published in the two Darko articles where his source for info is dCS.
Its like a Porsche Boxster should not be faster than a 911 i understand that.
Or a Nordost Blue Heaven should not be better performing than the Valhalla, i get that.
But after a while some products need to be upgraded to meet the competition from other brands if possible.
I think you have it backwards! dCS post accurate info, but journalists are likely to misinterpret things or we gather different things from these articles. I recall enquiring about a feature in the darko article about software capabilities like AirTunes. Shot down, and lo and behold…Mosaic comes out which journalists didn’t have a sniff of. Good things will come for all dCS products, not just the Bartok.
If 4 articles states the same with quots from dCS i think that testify it is a true fact, and why should it not, it is logic that you make one circuit board and then try to scale it down slightly, so it cannot be as good as the top tier in the model program. Why invent the wheel two times.
So insted of speculations Andrew, please do a writeup whats the diffrence in the code and HW between the Bartok streamer card and the NWB for example then.
You write as if there is some kind of conspiracy at dCS to make essentially the same product three times, put each one in a different box and handicap two of them so that they do not perform as well as the third thereby implying that all have the capability of the same performance as the one that hasn’t been handicapped.
This is not how dCS or most other companies do things. In reality a flagship product is created and the question is then not how to ensure that the next model down is inferior in order to preserve the status of the flagship but how can as much of the flagship’s performance can be retained but sell for a lower price and/or to a different type of potential customer. So features and technology may be removed or simplified to achieve this but which are not replaceable merely by a new issue of the firmware. Of course, as Andrew says, development work is always going on and this can result in updates but that is quite different from them undoing some kind of predetermined handicap.
3 Likes
I think we wait to here an clarification from dCS them self is the best, so we amateurs don’t need to argue who is right , i only tell what is published in the articles where dCS states that the Bartok got the same Ring dac and FPGA Field Programable Gate Array Spartan Chip as the Rossini, but with only one PSU and the Code in the FPGA chip only use about 85% of Rossini performance. So it is restricted in a way.
i think in 2019 this sounds very logical that you build products like this and i am not against it in any way, i just write what i have read.
And based on that dCS can differentiate their line up, and also have room for improvements , implementation of new features etc in future for their products like PS Audio Direct Stream DAC who also is using FPGA, but a Delta Sigma converter instead of the R2R Ring DAC dCS is using.
1 Like
Time after time Improvements will come, but in small dosing to ensure longevity of the product. That’s fine to me.
1 Like