Looking for Buying Advice - Bartok or Rossini?

Audio Systems
1

Okay, I realize this question will require a subjective answer, nonetheless I am hoping to tap the experiential knowledge of the people who find themselves here in this forum.

I am not a current dCS customer, I am planning to replace my existing (and old) DAC in my primary listening system with a new one from dCS. Unfortunately, there are limited audition opportunities in my area so I am going to purchase one on the basis of the many reviews I’ve read. I am trying to decide between the following:

Bartok w/headphone amp + Rossini Clock
I get the headphone amp., which is not my primary listening mode but it’s nice to have the option when I feel like putting on the cans. I believe the addition of the clock will narrow the gap in performance with the straight Rossini.

Rossini
I believe with this option I would perhaps get better sound but would lose the headphone amp/option. I would also get the latest 2.0 software which is certainly nice but I believe at some point that will be available on the Bartok as well and I’m thinking about this as a long-term play. It would be interesting to compare the Rossini pre-2.0 with the Bartok as a better apples-to-apples comparison to get a sense for how much the different HW platforms (vs SW) contribute to the difference in audio performance.

Anyway, these two options price out about the same so it’s really a question of how much of a gap in sound I would have should I want the headphone amp.

Opinions valued and welcome

2

I have been a dCS customer for over 20 years. One thing I know is that all dCS products provide increased performance as the ranges elevate.

So you can rely upon a Rossini DAC being audibly better than a Bartok and a Vivaldi being better than a Rossini.

If the headphone amp is nice but incidental ( you say it is not your primary way of listening) then there is absolutely no question that a Rossini should be your purchase if you are able to be in that price bracket. The clock may improve the Bartok but if you can afford the Rossini you will find it superior even without the clock which, in any case, you can add later when you can afford it ( I would).

1 Like
3

For state of the art systems (e.g Wilson Sasha upwards, Focal Utopia EM etc) I would recommend Ros over Bartók. I upgraded from Debussy to Bartok (sans Cans amp) because that’s all I could afford to trade in, as well as having the old Focal Scalas. It’s too high risk to believe 2.0 updates will be delivered for the Bartók and to choose on that basis, or there is official news it will happen. With the clock options, I’m fairly confident that the jump from B+Clk to R+Clk is great enough to start with Ros first.

4

The more advanced Ring DAC mapping algorithm used in Rossini and Vivaldi 2.0 has a much more significant impact on sound quality than the addition of a master clock. In terms of real performance the Rossini will far exceed that of the Bartók + Master Clock.

As for adding the new mappers to Bartók, this is definitely possible, but we have not even considered a timeline of when we might do that. There is nothing on the near or medium term plan to implement this change and the smartest thing to do is to is to spend what you can afford on the right mix of features and performance that exists now.

If headphones are a secondary listening scenario for you now then you can always add a modest headphone amp to the second set of outputs on a Rossini. Should your listening preferences change then you can always upgrade that amp and still have a digital front-end that’s hard to beat at any price.

3 Likes
5

Thanks for your opinion here, but any reason why it’s not being addressed currently? I have read the Bartoks reviews around, and they have been lukewarm, and often compared unfavourably to the Ros- (Audiophile Style Bartók review said it sounded ‘skeletal’ in comparison to it). In the end, I’m enjoying what Mosaic brings to dCS and quite support the idea of it evolving to be something special.

6

I have probably read every review in English of the Bartok. I have never read one that I can describe as lukewarm although JA2’s in Stereophile could have explored the product more fully IMO.

Austinpop’s review on Audiphile Style was one of the most thorough and well written reviews I have read of anything. He is very enthusiastic about Bartok concluding " The dCS Bartók is one of the most impressive pieces of audio gear I’ve had in my system: ever."

It distorts the review to quote the passage you refer to out of context.

As I indicated earlier in this thread the Rossini is better than the Bartok. One, however, costs considerably more than the other. In turn the Vivaldi is better than the Rossini. However all are superb performers at their price point.

6 Likes
7

@PAR Thanks for your take in this, and I would agree with you wrt where dCS place their models at their respective price points. I have read dCS reviews since the Purcell/Elgar/Verona to know those products and successive models stood in a league of their own. Somehow what I get from Sphile and Austinpops Bartók reviews that competitors at very close to dCS’s entry level (Mytek, PSAudio, Chord). At least it is telling that out of the review, Austinpop has moved onto the the Chord DAVE. What I’m meant to convey is what might have been, had a more advance mapping been in place since launch?

8

Our products are a combination of bespoke hardware and software with the realized performance being roughly equal parts of the two. The value proposition of the Rossini is that it occupies a performance range that’s roughly midway between the Bartók and the Vivaldi. If we were to increase the performance of the Bartók with respect to the Rossini then that value proposition wouldn’t be as strong. The fact of the matter is that in order to bump up the performance of the Bartók there will need to be a commensurate increase in the performance of the Rossini as well.

One thing that I need to stress here is that although software has no “hard” costs in terms of components or assembly time it’s still extremely expensive to develop. You guys would be amazed at the amount of money that was spent in terms of developer pay in order to develop Rossini 2.0, Mosaic, or even the MQA implementation. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of £ and all of that has been delivered to our customers at no additional cost. Although no hardware changed Rossini 2.0 should be thought of as a completely different product than 1.x. The differences in performance are that great.

Bartók is a new product and it will see performance enhancements through software when the timing is appropriate.

This gave me a good chuckle. Thank you for that…

The fact of the matter is that Bartók in its current form is extremely close to Rossini 1.x in terms of measured and subjective performance. Rossini 1.x received absolutely stellar reviews and not one of those could have ever been inferred to be “lukewarm.”

In terms of a comparison of Bartók to Rossini 2.0 (i.e. the Audiophile Style review), while I may not have chosen the words used I would agree with the assessment. Rossini 2.0 has a lot more texture and “meat” when compared to Bartók and it should. It’s considerably more expensive.

2 Likes
9

@Andrew,

I am in complete agreement with you, software is far from free and I further agree with you that keeping a price/performance separation between the Bartok and the Rossini makes perfect sense.

Thank you for your mention that Bartok is very close to Rossini 1.x, this gives some indication of what % of the performance is HW vs SW.

The way I read this is that a Bartok today would be close to a Rossini of yesterday (1.x), and that when Rossini 2.0 is replaced either by new SW or revised HW, the Bartok platform is likely to move to Bartok 2.0, the performance of which would be close to Rossini 2.0. However, this move is likely years away but should give reassurance to Bartok buyers in the longevity of the platform.

Thank you for your reply.

2 Likes
10

Andrew - seeing as it has been just over a year since your post indicating there was no current consideration for introducing Bartok 2.0 Mapping as in the Rossini, I’m hoping there is now some progress in this area.

I bought a new Bartok with headphone amp and new Rossini Clock about a year ago (these replaced my Puccini Player and U-Clock which replaced my P8-I, so I have now been a dCS customer for 16 years). I mostly listen through my full system, but do enjoy using the headphone option, particularly when my wife is around and it doesn’t suit to have the full system on, or above a low volume level. All of that was considered when I opted for the Bartok. Knowing the dCS history of improving the performance of its products through software/firmware updates, I expected (and still hope) that dCS would offer the improved mapping for Bartok (I had it confirmed that Bartok would support the mapping prior to purchase). I expect by now dCS may have as many or more Bartok customers as Rossini/Vivaldi. Particularly given the recent price increases, seems that not only would mapping 2.0 solidify customer satisfaction for all of your Bartok customers, but it would also likely help potential customers considering Bartok vs. competitive products, as the quality in digital audio improves at a much faster rate than any other category in the industry.

It would be great to get an update from you, and I’m certain that all of your Bartok customers are equally keen on this matter.

Thanks in advance Andrew!
-Lee

7 Likes
11

I ordered a new Bartok three weeks ago having extensively read the up-to-date reviews of this DAC/Roon Endpoint. I did get a good part exchange deal offer on my just nearing end of warrenty’ PS Audio Direct Stream DAC and Perfect Wave Transport’. It was only after this I researched this thread further and discovered the almost universal advice is “Rossini” instead of “Bartok + Clock”. In a nutshell I am back on a 6-8 week wait having changed my mind with this order. My only concern is ‘shelf life’. We will see…

12

You made the right choice, of that I have no doubt.

When you say "shelf life " exactly what do you mean; operational life, production life, future support ?

13

Only that the majority of the reviews are from 2016 - that was 5 years ago. I know that a major firmware upgrade happened in 2019 but maybe the hardware is a limiting factor for the medium/longer term ( product life cycle). Having said that I’m really looking forward to its arrival to accompany my Chord Monobloc’s, Chord preamp and Martin Logan ESL15A speakers. I only use Roon these days with Roon Server on a NUC with Synology NAS - all remotely sited. I love the technology and of course Qobuz.

14

Where’s that rabbit hole emoji?

2 Likes
15

dCS production life cycle are typically long. However it cannot last infinitely and time will come when Rossini will be replaced. These replacements of the range occur when the existing operating platform cannot be finessed further. However as dCS hand build each piece and therefore their production capacity is limited in comparison to big industry they do not replace all of the lines simultaneously. So far they have started at the top with a new flagship and worked down the range over some years. As the current flagship ( Vivaldi) has not yet been replaced I would take a good guess that Rossini still has some years to run. Of course the pieces are built to last in the first place.

Even after it is replaced support is likely to be offered . Obviously the continuance of spare parts cannot be guaranteed but dCS may offer alternative solutions.

3 Likes
16

I’m just hoping to get the Rossini software revision to fix the truncated start of .dsf file playback issue; I avoid DSD playback altogether because of it.

That having been said, this was my experience when auditioning compared to my Wadia S7i:

Bartok: Very good, but not quite as good as the Wadia. Nice soundstage, but the initial attack of piano notes was a bit metallic. If I didn’t have the Wadia, I might be tempted, but no.

Rossini Player: Excellent, much better than the Bartok, even better soundstage and resolution, but the piano notes were still a tiny bit metallic. The felt was still missing from the piano hammers compared to the Wadia.

Rossini Player with Rossini Clock: Finally the Wadia was beaten. Incredible soundstage, piano notes sounded like piano notes, and the room was there. I remember when I would shut off the clock, the room would just disappear and the instruments would be in a nebulous space; when the clock was turned back on, suddenly the sense of the space the performers were in returned.

This was great, as my favorite story is three young guys had come into the store and were in the back looking at some TVs. When I turned off the clock they said “What did you do? The sound quality just dropped?” It was not subtle. When I turned the clock back on they almost sighed in relief (I know I did.)

Given how much effort Wadia put into clocking and jitter reduction this comparison should not have surprised me, but it did. I also have to give them kudos as it took a configuration 2.4x the Wadia’s price to beat it. DACs from Audio Research, Moon, Mytek and PS Audio never came as close as even the Bartok did.

I traded my S7i for the Rossini Player and Clock and couldn’t be happier about it (aside from the .dsf bug. :wink:)

I get why dCS allows you to buy a Rossini without the Clock, but I almost feel you shouldn’t be allowed to buy one that way, you just give up so much and shortchange the Rossini badly.

3 Likes
17

:grinning: :grinning: :grinning: