Options...Vivaldi-Rossini+ the rest :-)

[T38.45]

So Pete, will dCS goes that route?

[struts001]

@PAR

The dual AES capability did not arise only out of professional demand at the time. It was primarily to enable the transmission of sample rates in excess of the ( then) AES 3 protocol maximum of 96kS/s and, importantly and later, SACD without using IEEE1394 ( which was a true PITA believe me).

I think you will find they are one and the same thing Pete. AES-3 was a studio standard and the use of dual AES-3 connections to carry higher sampling rates, while I don’t think it has been adopted by the AES (but I am sure @anupc will know), was simply a continuation along that tangent. AES was never any more of a consumer standard than FireWire was a studio one. The demand for hi res digital started in the studios (obviously, otherwise the consumers would never have had any hi res material to play on their consumer equipment!)

So although optical connection is the way to go that does seem to relate to network connection rather than inter-unit mating. I guess it can be done but have never come across it outside of Toslink which is data limited.

You are right inasfar as there is no audio equipment-specific application-layer standard for digital-audio-umbilical-over-fiber but several manufacturers have started to implement this with proprietary solutions. After all, fiber provides a very high bandwidth digital connection where even the SoTA physical medium is relatively cheap (sorry guys!). MSB is doing it, WADAX is doing it and I know there are several other brands one and two rungs down the ladder that are doing the same (I am sure others her can and will fill in the names).

So we will need to connect different units like transports and therefore backwards compatibility remains.

Once again I believe these are two separate issues so it is helpful to consider them separately.

• Backwards compatibility is good to a degree. But to the degree it drives cost, complexity and hideous snake pits for the benefit of a very small minority at the expense of the huge majority I believe it is the wrong way to go. dCS could very easily make a simple interface box to provide interoperability with the fiber standard and the steam engines for those that need it.
• However putting backwards-compatibility aside for a second. As a general purpose digital interface fiber is just as good as (if not better, galvanic isolation for free with no need for isolating transformers) as Dual-AES, even for connecting CD/SACD transports.

[RobW (Rob)]

@struts001

Yes, double the cable cost (which for some here means +/- fhe cost of a small car)

Me myself made a good deal for the Aurender W20SE. With its upsampling possibilities and Wordclock input (using Vivaldi’s Wordclock out to sync) Dual AES is a fabulous (cost-) effective solution to me.

[struts001]

@RobW

Me myself made a good deal for the Aurender W20SE. With its upsampling possibilities and Wordclock input (using Vivaldi’s Wordclock out to sync) Dual AES is a fabulous (cost-) effective solution to me.

Good for you! Absolutely, but one fiber connection could carry 100 channels of DXD audio and 100 clock signals and, and, and…

As I said, I get backwards-compatibility, but IMO it is a simple case of demographics and philosophy.

• I assume dCS product management is monitoring the demographics (maybe via this forum?), i.e. what proportion of the user-base has homogeneous systems (dCS-only, same-generation) vs heterogeneous ones (different generations or different manufacturers).
• Brand philosophy on backwards compatibility can differ enormously. I personally cast dCS as an example of an extremely backward-looking company in this regard. Contrast them with at the other end of the spectrum Apple for example, who value progress so highly they provide backwards compatibility exclusively via dongles even in cases where the heterogeneous portion of the market dwarfs the homogeneous one. Maybe it’s true that they see dongles as a good place to recover margin on low-margin hardware sales, but at the end of the day those connectors and cables all cost money wherever you put them!

[PAR (Pete)]

@T38.45

So Pete, will dCS goes that route?

I have no idea. However in making its decision about such matters dCS will no doubt consider not only the technical aspect but also any commercial impact. For example, although fibre may have advantages there could be customer resistance to having to change from wire installations especially from those who may have invested significantly in certain high end cabling offers.

For the management, a difficult balancing act.

[struts001]

Again, I don’t think it’s a case of either/or. One reasonably priced interface box solves the problem for the legacy base while freeing the entire next and all subsequent generations of hardware and ancillaries from that legacy cost and complexity drag.

[T38.45]

Makes sense for investment protection…, but - at some point- one has to start with a greenfield approach. Otherwise, the legacy stuff will stop you from being innovativ.

[jandersonhill (Jeremy)]

Electrically, AES seems to be sound

[struts001]

Haha, sounds like a cryptic crossword clue: Turbulent water is electrically sound (3).

[jandersonhill (Jeremy)]

And did you solve it?

[Anupc (Anup)]

@struts001

while I don’t think it has been adopted by the AES

Can’t recall which, but it’s either in AES3-2009 (r2019) or one of the earlier AES publications.

@PAR

It was primarily to enable the transmission of sample rates in excess of the ( then) AES 3 protocol maximum of 96kS/s and, importantly and later, SACD without using IEEE1394 ( which was a true PITA believe me).

That, plus there’s another, perhaps not so obvious, reason for dCS using AES - they’re real experts at the AES interface & signalling! dCS can make the AES interface do things no other vendor in the market can because they developed the necessary programmable hardware (and firmware) completely in-house from the earliest days.

@PAR

So although optical connection is the way to go that does seem to relate to network connection rather than inter-unit mating.

Personally, I think the way forward is AES67 (over copper or ideally fiber)

[jandersonhill (Jeremy)]

@struts001

My point being, format changes are not he only factor that can with time render a digital product obsolete

Such is the nature of progress!

[Donald_D]

If I had spent €30K on 0.6m XLR interconnects, I wouldn’t have an issue financially to upgrade to the next gen dCS products with fiber standard, I think.

[meltemi (Martin)]

@struts001

How many Bartók/Rossini/Vivaldi users have studios and care about compatibility with professional gear?
How many users actually use this to connect with anything other than contemporary generation dCS consumer gear?

I do.

[struts001]

What’s your use case Martin? And would you feel abandoned by dCS if the next generation of products used fiber umbilicals and you needed a (let’s assume) reasonably priced interface box (something analogous to a Network Bridge) to provide backwards compatibility to the Dual AES-3 generation?

[struts001]

@Anupc

Can’t recall which, but it’s either in AES3-2009 (r2019) or one of the earlier AES publications.

If you could send me the paper I would be interested to read it. I was not aware Dual AES had ever been adopted. I don’t feel like paying $100 for it since I have no commercial purpose, simply idle curiosity.

Personally, I think the way forward is AES67 (over copper or ideally fiber)

Yes, I remember reading that Kevin Gross won a 2019 Emmy for it. Apparently a really excellent piece of work.