For the argument sake....upsampling

My digital streaming setup - Roon ROCK +Bartók+Naim Uniticore feeding into Naim amps

Just out of curiosity for Roon users - There are a few options in upsampling while replaying plain old 16/44.1 pcm

  1. Totally unmolested in Roon then let Bartok upsamples data to DSD or DXD
  2. Roon upsamples to DXD then Bartok upsamples to DSD
  3. Roon upsamples all the way to DSD128 then Bartok process this DSD stream

Wanna hear what others experienced with this as I’m quite new to Roon

Obviously the 4th and probably least controversial option would be sticking with Mosaic (1.02!)

My current preference is Roon to upsamples to 24/358 then Bartok set upsampling to DSD. Seems to give a more natural presentation

Though Having a short listening with the new Mosaic and network firmware update I’m very impressed

Hello Gordon, it seems you tried a lot of approaches ! I’m quite fine with a Vivaldi Upsampler upsampling to DSD128. For this reason i tried to make the same kind of conversion with Roon Server installed on a Xeon powered PC (32Go RAM and audio-linux onboard). The best sonic result was to let the Vivaldi upsampler managing the upsampling : more natural, fluid, articulated and dynamic.
I don’t know if the Bartok is performing at the same level than upsampler but at least it is my experience.

1 Like

I spent whole weekends (two or three almost exclusively dedicated to this one topic) at a couple of friends’ places to listen and compare to HQPlayer etc. upsampling, rates, filters, whatnot. As much as I love dCS Upsampling, I’ve come to the conclusion I’m apparently not an advocate or fan of Upsampling per se. Done on a computer/server, I thought all of it semi-worthwhile (cons and plusses). Not what I’d expected as someone who’s been a happy owner of (different generations of) dCS Upsampler(s). In a nutshell, with the exception of dCS Upsampling, which I love (= “makes better heard what’s there”), I’m not sure I like the specific sonic imprint at all. Maybe my expectations were too high, but that’s the point, I was free from the negative bias someone else might have had in the first place.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

1 Like

Likewise. Unfortunately I am always aware of the spatial oddities it can produce. I thought that I was alone in the world in hearing these (with all three upsamplers I have owned) until I read the preamble to the Leedh processing patent ( an earlier discussion here this year).

As I now have a brand new Vivaldi upsampler (purchased for its networking board), unsurprisingly I wanted to check if my usual problems with upsampling had now been overcome. So I took a well recorded track with a clearly defined central image. In this case the Beethoven bagatelles from the 1990s recording by Alfred Brendel. So, for those unfamiliar with the work, a solo piano. The usual recorded perspective, as if heard from some feet away, piano placed side on from roughly the centre towards the right as the length of the instrument and lower strings extend that way. So a conventional concert perspective.

Right hand notes should be around the centre. Yes, fine. Wait they are a little to the left. No, to the right . Then I realise I am hearing the audio equivalent of an optical illusion, you know the one where a silhouette of a vase turns into a face and vice versa. I am hearing the same sound shifting slightly centre, left and right yet somehow being in all these positions at the same time. The left hand notes appear to be as if from a second piano pushed against the back of the first instead of extending smoothly off towards the right. Switch off the upsampling ( 2xDSD in this case with DAC filter 5 for DSD) and return to 16/44.1 (using DAC filter 5 - the PCM asymmetric one) and I hear a solid and convincing Steinway Model D without any sonic contradictions.

I don’t want to be controversial being a dCS fanboy but that’s what I hear or something similar with every track upsampled. Ultimately it produces a great deal of listening fatigue in me. Native 2xDSD is another matter altogether and I love the few examples that I own.

Still, so far I seem to be in a minority.

So, Vivaldi Dac + Vivaldi Clock + Network Bridge is better than the Dac + upsampler, if I understand well.
Interesting to me.
Thanks for your quick review.

That is not what I said. A Vivaldi DAC + Vivaldi Clock + Vivaldi Upsampler is better than a Vivaldi DAC +Vivaldi Clock + Network Bridge. This is because the network solution in the Vivaldi Upsampler is better than that of the Network Bridge ( as excellent as the latter otherwise is). I have owned both combinations within the last few months.

Of course if one is not bothered by the upsampling artefacts ( and most seem not to be) then one can happily use the upsampling provision of the Vivaldi Upsampler which is , I assume, why most have bought it. However I only use the networking provision.

1 Like

But dCS claims that the network stuff in the NB and in the Upsampler is the same…but it seems that your experience does not confirm it…well…I am still hesitant whether I should buy the clock or the upsampler…and it is not easy to find a shop where I could listen to it to spot which combination I like the most…

So Pete, you’re passing through DSD at native rates, correct? And are you finding that imagery satisfactory?

Pete isn’t the first to report that the networking solution in the Vivaldi Upsampler sounds better than that in the Network Bridge - I’ve read on another forum of people who made this exact same comparison, with the Upsampler in Clone Mode, of course, coming to the same conclusion. I wasn’t there, just saying, learning never stops…

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

1 Like

As to passing DSD through, I’d be curious what DSD64 for DSD128 actually does to the signal technically, because it sounds very much like back-and-forth upsampling/remodulation via DXD (PCM) to me, in other words, I prefer using the “DSD Pass Through” function. It also sounds better to me playing back DSD64 than if the Upsampler is set to DSD to DSD (input = output) - doesn’t make sense (or does it)?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Slightly off topic however Network bridges have been mentioned.

Is the network bridge hardware in the Rossini the exact same board as what is currently in the new Bartok?

Best
Gregg

There have been a few comments from dCS about this topic within a few subject threads fairly recently ( although I can’t find them this afternoon for some reason).

The most recent one that I recall said that the implementation of the network interface is better on the Vivaldi ( so that isn’t necessarily the networking board per se ) and Andrew has also remarked upon the superiority of the Vivaldi Upsampler’s implementation of network replay compared with the Network Bridge. I have to say that if one has the opportunity of hearing both in the system with which you are most familiar the difference is pretty clear.

However the Network Bridge is terrific in its own right and offers a major percentage of the Vivaldi Upsampler’s network streaming performance at a minor percentage of the cost.

1 Like

Yes, native DSD64 or 128 using the pass through option sound pretty glorious to me. No problems with imagery when I hear Rachel Podger and Brecon Baroque virtually appearing at the end of my room ( DSD128). The illusion is so strong that I almost have to say " excuse me" when I walk between the speakers to go upstairs to the loo :smile:.

In fact I have duplicated some Pentatone recordings that I own in 24/96 PCM with DSD64 files as Pentatone’s website implies that the original recording was made in the latter format. I find DSD superior in this instance.

2 Likes

Thank you for that however perhaps I was not clear with my question. I have a new Bartok and may be considering a change to a Rossini. I would like to know if the Network interface board in the Bartok is the same as in the Rossini (physical circuit board). I guess then another question could be if the functionality is the same between the two - or perhaps the Rossini has firmware which also changes the Network streaming performance vs. the Bartok (just like 2.0 changes the RingDac mapping and performance even though the FPGA is the same between the two).

Best
Gregg

Bartok, Rossini, Vivaldi Upsampler, and Vivaldi one all use the EXACT same network board. Network bridge uses an ever-so-slightly different one, but same exact CPU architecture.

The software is all a common code base so there is effectively no difference in the software between any of the products. There is not anything in the code which changes performance of the streaming interface depending on the device in which the card is installed.

…but… none of that matters one bit in terms of actual performance. The network interfaces all “sound” the same. The sonic differences between the products come from the differences in digital decoding, power supply, analogue stage design, etc, etc.

Rossini performs better than Bartok because it is a different product that was conceived with different performance targets in mind. The increased performance is realized through a combination of hardware, software, and physical construction.

6 Likes

Andrew

Perfect. Thank you for the detailed explanation.
Perhaps more thread drift however one more question. My understanding is that the Rossini was released in 2016 and based upon the new architecture developed with the Vivaldi. The Bartok followed at the end of 2018/early 2019. Was the Bartok a continuation of a trickle down of the same Vivaldi/Rossini architecture or were there new advancements and developments unique to the Bartok - and which might carry over to the next generation of dCS players?

Best
Gregg

As was the progression established in Scarlatti > Paganini > Debussy so is the progression in Vivaldi > Rossini > Bartok.

The underlying hardware architecture used in Bartok is very similar to that used in Rossini which, in turn, is very similar to that used in Vivaldi. Vivaldi has a much more complex sophisticated processing architecture than the other two and Rossini has a more sophisticated power supply and enclosure than Bartok. The big difference between the three is in software and that’s where Vivaldi is far ahead of Rossini… and Rossini is far ahead of Bartok.

1 Like

Thank you. This was helpful to determine the remaining life span of each unit. If things continue as in the past one would expect there will first be a replacement Vivaldi followed by a replacement Rossini 1-2 years later.

In other words (for my interest) it sounds like the current Rossini will be with us for quite a while longer.

If you look at the interior of the Vivaldi upsampler you’ll see that the streamer is a small green pcb connected to the pcb concerned with upsampling which is connected to a large pcb which is exactly the same as the Vivaldi clock pcb. In fact the Vivaldi dac appears to be a pcb attached to the same pcb found in the Vivaldi clock. It appears dCS built the clock first and incorporated that into the other boxes. This supports my theory that the clock isn’t really a super duper clock design just the same clock with an isolated power supply. Maybe the clock software is better but why wouldn’t they use the same code in the dac version of the board?

The NWB obviously doesn’t have the Vivaldi clock Board or the same quality power supply. The power supply in the NWB is likely the same found in the Rossini clock.

The upsampler has to be overkill for just streaming.

In a sense yes but the decision for Vivaldi owners is buy the Upsampler or have no streaming at all ( which for many means no music at all).