Yes. It was mentioned as an aside n the Varese webinar last week.
Oh dear. No wonder dCS has been silent on this topic for so longâŚ
What David said on the call I was on (the 0730 BST call) was that the problem was a bottleneck in the network interface (presumably the Stream800 board) and that âengineering was trying to find a workaroundâ. Presumably by âworkaroundâ he meant something that wouldnât require a board replacement.
As an aside the Stream800 has since been superseded by the Stream1955 which is not a drop-in replacement. David also mentioned that for Varèse dCS developed their own streamer from the ground up, so presumably this is the longer term solution (i.e. for future lines).
5 Likes
However, we also know that this is not being treated as a priority.
I donât feel that enthusiasts need to be reminded that those bitrates have no realistic value, neither should luxury buyers (do they care about specs anyway or just about the bragging rights associated with the price tag?) People that buy a $99 DAC are presumably not the same people that consider buying a dCS DAC. We can politely ignore the ASR crowd.
I am a bit reminded by how I would think about cars when I was a small child, looking at the speed dial would tell me âhow fastâ it could go, or so I thought. This one is better because it says a higher number on the dial 
3 Likes
Thank you @struts001
Was anything more said that might be relevant with respect to timing, priority, further updates to V/R/B?
What I am getting at is did dCS say anything that would imply one of these two directions going forward:
(a) We are still working on improvements to the V/R/B platforms;
Or
(b) V/R/B have had their time. All future upgrades will come as trickle down from Varese reflected in new products (and therefore not in legacy platforms)
Historically (unless I am mistaken) dCS has consistently chosen (b) after a new platform is released
Thank you,
R
1 Like
Nothing was said specifically about V/R/B on the call I attended, although âexisting productsâ were mentioned more generically in the context of the DSD streaming issue mentioned above and unspecified Mosaic enhancements that are being worked on.
That said my reading between the lines (and I stress it is just that) is that we are unlikely to see V/R/B replaced in the imminent future, and I came off the call with a sense that they might in fact live on longer than I thought going on to it rather than shorter.
I think historically dCS has demonstrated a real commitment to protecting their customersâ investments and has only replaced a platform when the scale of the internal changes needed to deliver meaningful sound quality improvements is so great that the existing platform canât accommodate it. It almost goes without saying that APEX would have been packaged as new product lines by many manufacturers. Also, while Varèse contains a raft of new innovations it represents a considerably larger form factor and it isnât immediately clear how those will manifest themselves in smaller packages.
So while V/R/B will all of course all be replaced at some point I am personally expecting my Vivaldi to live on for a good bit longer, and enjoy further software & firmware (almost certainly) and hardware (possibly) updates.
3 Likes
If we were on the same (first) call, my recollection was that David stressed the dCS community and their commitment to passing down improvements when possible. My impression was that some of the Varese innovations might cascade down to existing ranges.
In fact, at the volumes Varese will likely sell (small), the best near-term opportunity to develop and exploit the tech is probably in existing products. I suspect V/R/B replacements based on Varese tech would be years away (and much more expensive).
It would make good business sense to offer upgrades to existing lines for short term sales and cost recovery. All IMO of course.
3 Likes
I have to admit I must have repressed those specific statements but definitely came away with the resulting warm feeling.
Definitely agree with your sentiments on the business logic of upgrades. I suspect it is going to take quite a lot more engineering time to get Varèse fully birthed and stabilized so leveraging bite-sized spin-offs from that makes very good sense in the near term.
Well, weâve already seen one - APEX is derived from the work they did for Varèse.
4 Likes
I happen to agree for the hardware side. The only thing that would tempt me to a next gen Bartok replacement is if dCS finds a way miniaturize their differential DAC to fit in a single box entry solution which offers a clear sonic upgrade.
In the here and now however, most of what I personally want can be upgraded within the existing Bartok / Rossini platform. Thinks Like
- Ux overhaul of Mosaic app and onscreen functions.
- Airplay 2 support
- Revisions to mappers and filters based on dCSâs latest research
1 Like
It might be helpful if you could itemise what you arenât happy with and, if possible, what you would like instead. Otherwise the guesses of someone else may not coincide with your ideas.
I will say that over the years I have dealt with numerous queries about Mosaic. I have to say that the majority have been because the user has not fully explored Mosaic and has, for example, accepted that the major items displayed on the home page for each service is all there is.
As for the rest ,I do understand. However I go along with @Anup when he said that dCS have a hard job in making Vivaldi Apex sound better .Or at least materially better. I have the same opinion regarding the rest of the Apex range even considering their prices. At this point it is taking 5 boxes and ÂŁ200k + to do it 
.
3 Likes
I think itâs a huge mistake to say that.
As I said, people shopping dCS arenât shopping by spec, but at the same time if youâre going to invest in a new DAC, youâre going to make sure it handles the formats youâre interested in, and even DSD256 is a âminimumâ if youâre buying with the future in mind given DSD512 and DSD1024 are already out there.
Iâve mentioned before I absolutely loved my Wadia S7i but part of the reason I replaced it is it was forever going to be stuck at 96/24 PCM, as the new owners just threw away the completely designed, ready to ship upgrade for it to 192/24 when they bought Wadia.
That didnât change how it sounded, but it did draw a line as being a technological dead end.
Even though there is minimal DSD256 content out now, would you feel comfortable saying thatâs going to be the same in four or five years before buying something in this price range given if you feel Topping is a silly comparison, what about LampizatOr, MSB and Wadax? They all support DSD256, as does virtually every other dCS-competitive DAC.
3 Likes
Iâve looked at the S800 board very closely in the past, Iâm not sure thereâs a âhardware limitationâ on supporting DSD256, but due to firmware or otherwise, I believe it does currently top out at 384kS/s on itâs I²S output which is where I suspect the âbottleneckâ is.
2 Likes
While I agree with this sentiment in general, at present some of us are using Roon to downsampled high quality DSD256 recordings to DSD128 so they are playable through V/R/B.
It is, IMHO, not difficult at all to believe that dCS supporting that stream natively would Definitely sound better.
1 Like
OTOH, I donât think itâs going to be simple. Addressing the potential bit-rate transport bottlenecks on the Steaming board aside, designing appropriate filters (& mappers) for DSD256 is I think a whole different set of challenges with the current platforms.
With regards to Mosaic in its current form, honestly there is very little iâm unhappy about. With a clean sheet however, I think there is lots that can be done to improve how we interact with our dCS solutions and music library.
A lot has changed since Mosaic was first developed and dCS has incorporated new thinking into the Lina (on screen ux for example) and the forth coming Varese app. Some of which i hope will cascade to the Mosaic app for B/R/V.
As for sound quality in the current B/R/V or any future single box solution I do agree with you both ⌠my 2 cents is that we will not see a significant leap in sound until manufacturing techniques make miniaturized resistor networks + flex boards a reliable, cost effective and practicable option for small manufactures to implement.
That is terrible news if true.
It seems that the streaming board is the reason why, to date,those high rate DSD formats have not been added. Please see the more specific reason given by Anup above.
dCS say that they are trying to find a way around this. Will they be successful? We have no idea, however it does not seem to be top of their âto doâ list.
Whatever, for commercial,rather than technical or audiophile reasons, a product of this nature in the market for 12 years must be due for refreshment. Bluntly, by now most buyers of a new Vivaldi have already got one. A replacement for Vivaldi will be the point from which new products will then trickle down. Putting it simply, for dCS to survive they have to have something to sell.
Importantly, dCS history is that once a product becomes a legacy one it remains supported (meaning serviced if it goes wrong) but new developments/additions cease.
So,at best it is fingers crossed.
Exactly and much to the same point I have been making in my previous posts. Speaking as a Rossini APEX + Clock owner, I have a desire to upgrade. I will absolutely not purchase a 12 year old Vivaldi. I believe other Bartok, Rossini, and Vivaldi owners âin the knowâ have similar viewpoints.
dCS needs to release replacement products otherwise I speculate sales for the coming year, other than Varese, will be somewhat sparse. Perhaps sales of Varese, with its elevated price, will be sufficient to tide them over until a new product range gets released. I guess they will find out.
4 Likes