@Lee I had this argument with @Anupc also. Please not that Anupc’s claim relies on comparative measurements done with a Vivaldi stack, all other parameters (besides changing between Roon and Mosaic) being equal. The test is scientifically stringent, BUT the conclusions only hold true for a Vivaldi system. Anupc is not claiming that his findings are valid in other environments.
1 Like
Slightly correction. They’re valid for dCS systems - Vivaldi, Rossini, Bartok - as the networking input stage, and the Compute boards and processing stage - are the same.
Just wanted to be stringent in the argument (all other parameters being equal) to be on the safe side and not open up another can of worms. If you change dCS model, ceteris paribus condition is not fulfilled and hence the argument in its strict sense not valid.
I am quite sure that you are correct and that your findings are correct also for Rossini and Bartok, but the formal argument does not prove that.
If you want to argue semantics, then sure, in as far as having done actual measurements, I’ve only done so on the Vivaldi (for the reasons I explained in the post, which you may or may not have understood),
However, if you’re somehow implying that the Rossini and Bartok are not able to equally reconstitute PCM data bit-perfectly internally from the network like the Vivaldi Upsampler can, then please state your view openly (so that I can debunk your understanding). Let me also say you need to have better faith in dCS! 
I am not implying anything in that direction. I wouldn’t own a Rossini and I certainly wouldn’t have upgraded it to APEX if I were. I have a lot of faith in dCS to do their job right.
I am very aware why you did the measurements on a Vivaldi, because it has an accessible interface between the upsampler and the DAC, which Rossini and Bartok do not.
I am simply reacting to repeated heated discussions with people like Lee some posts up (and myself earlier on for that matter) who have misinterpreted your argument. In the strict sense of the word (and your words are strict at times) your test tells us something about Vivaldi and about Vivaldi only. May of these sometimes lengthy arguments could be nipped in the bud, if the scope of the discussion were made clear at the very start.
I am neither trying to lessen the significance of your test nor trying to imply anything regarding the bit perfect qualities of Rossini or Bartok. Just trying to suggest why many of these arguments go haywire because the two sides are considering a different scope of validity.
Fair enough. That said,
Unfortunately Lee clearly doesn’t understand the technical nature of why Qobuz/Mosaic and Qobuz Connect have no effect on the sound quality of the resulting Qobuz stream on a dCS component, so, it would be difficult to nip it in the bud when I attempt to explain (which I feel compelled to do to rather than leaving people to imagine all sorts of magical “sense of wonder” reasoning 
).
Just to be very clear, the point of my Vivaldi test applies equally across the V/R/B family (and the NB/Lina actually) as their network interface, the Compute board, and its corresponding I²S output stage, are all the same (by the way, I personally own all but the Rossini, and I’m well familiar with their internals). However, as I stated, the Vivaldi test does not extend to non dCS components such as the Volumio in your case, but that doesn’t automatically mean the laws of physics can be thrown out the window either. So, expect to see ongoing debates where necessary
To be clear, I made no claims on Qobuz Connect on sound quality. I did observe that the sound quality of Mosaic when played back on my Rossini Apex sounded a little better than Roon in my specific system. My local dealer believes it may be a Roon setup issue but that’s unclear.
Well, you certainly implied it;
Unless you meant it about something else, your “I’m not so sure” seems like a clear implication that you believe Mosaic/Qobuz could sound different from Qobuz Connect.
Not to belabour the point, but, you conflated two very different issues with that posts;
On the one hand, the Qobuz Connect vs. Mosaic/Qobuz argument - which is really a debate about whether different Control-Points triggering the dCS Streamer/DAC to issue a HTTP Get to the Qobuz Servers on the Internet, could cause difference in sound quality.
And on the other hand, the perennial Roon vs. Mosaic debate - which at its core is really an argument over different transport protocols (UPnP vs. Roon RAAT), and whether or not they could cause sonic differences.
In any case, I’m sure you couldn’t care less about any of that
Updated to the last firmware without reading all the changelog 
Seems Qobuz Connect is not part of this update. Wait for the next one.
Is there a timeline for Qobuz Connect support? Thx.
We don’t give out timelines Miguel, for the simple reason that we are often dependent on third parties for certification of new protocols so we don’t control the timing, but it is being actively worked on and is a high priority. Please keep the faith!
7 Likes
Thanks for the update Andrew. I always appreciate your honest and as open as you can be responses.
2 Likes
dCS launched Qobuz Connect today
6 Likes
Great news.
2 Likes
Super… Merci 
2 Likes
Hip Hip Hooray!
Well done Team dCS!
4 Likes
Updated with no problems. Streaming from my phone super easy. Very very nice!
3 Likes
A big improvment !
Thanks, dCS staff !
4 Likes
I can select my Lina DAC in Qobuz on macOS (network board 1.4.4 / 527), but it won’t actually play. Anyone run into this too?
Please contact [email protected]