Honestly, not anymore… My prototype has the hole for the eye, but it didn’t use the latest metalwork. This feature may have been removed. Your dealer will be able to tell for certain from his demo. Otherwise, the receiver on the front panel is definitely there.
Honestly, if you have a C4 programmer then I’d just hand him the RS232 codes and have him implement the control that way. It’s a lot more reliable than IR.
I sent him your attachment. He believes that serial is much harder to implement as a general rule and can require hours of testing. We have done IR using an emitter many times in the past, but not recently, as most units have eliminated both IR and serial, and use drivers over ethernet.
It is a shame that the IR receiver on the back panel appears to be gone, but I will double check that, as you suggest.
You might consider suggesting that dCS provide C4 drivers that can be used over ethernet, since dCS takes great pride in running everything over ethernet in any event. My C4 installer clearly believes those are the best and easiest to implement remotely.
BTW, the fact that the unit can use IR and serial remote commands shouldn’t be buried on the web site and in the manual. It is barely mentioned on the web site. This is a great convenience, right up there with your use of ethernet. Many systems will utilize some type of control system like C4, and the fact that the Bartok network DAC can be controlled from your chair using the same remote as with your system is a great feature.
Which is not meant to diminish the great app. It is really well done, and has a clean and simple interface, compared to the complicated piece of garbage used by Bluesound and others.
For me, it is just far more convenient to use my hand held C4 remote for everything when possible.
Andrew, as always, many thanks for the great support and prompt responses. I followed your advice and provided your attachment to my C4 dealer. He responded that what he needs to program a handheld C4 remote for volume is the ability to ramp up and down on volume. This can easily be accomplished in IR by learning the volume command from the dCS remote, and presumably the Rossini IR command for “volume +” and “volume -” does just that as well. However both of those approaches utilize IR and require the use of an ugly black wire and red IR flasher on the front panel of the Bartok, since dCS did not include the IR receiver on the rear of the Bartok as they did on other units, as we discussed.
The serial commands do not accomplish that at least not as we are interpreting them. The specific serial command in the dCS document is:
VOL = n
explanation: Sets the volume to ‘n’ dB – (and it then offers examples by 0.5 db)
VOL MOD n
explanation: Changes the volume setting by ‘n’ dB. The volume setting must be in the range 0 to -80.
Those appear to only allow a specific volume setting at a specific numerical dB level, or in the latter case, to adjust the volume by a specific numerical dB.
Neither appears to allow for a simple ramping up and down of volume on a volume control, no different from the dCS volume control or any other volume on a handheld C4 remote.
(1) Are we mistaken? Is there a way to control volume using the serial commands?
(2) Is there a serial command not included in the document to accomplish this?
(3) Finally, the manual explains both how to put the unit to sleep versus turning it off. What is the recommended approach each evening, or for a few days? I assume the preferred approach is to use the sleep command?
Many thanks as always for your response.
I’ve never programmed control 4 but the way that this is typically done is to have the button action linked to a loop in the code that repeats the VOL MOD command with a sensible increment (like 0.5db), and a short sleep (like 50-100msec). The sleep is there to keep the loop from cycling too quickly. Although the document doesn’t explicitly state it, the device does accept 0.5 as an argument to VOL MOD.
Volume UP on the remote calls the loop with a positive increment and repeats until the button is lifted.
Volume DN on the remote calls the loop with a negative increments and repeats until the button is lifted.
If I were programming it I would also take the acknowledgement from the device that the level has changed and then make an intelligent decision about what to do in cases where the limit is reached (stop sending commands) or when the adjustment command doesn’t elicit a response (like report an error)
For instance:
> vol mod +0.5
# Lineout Volume = <int> -130 #
# Volume = <int> -130 #
OK
> vol mod +0.5
# Lineout Volume = <int> -125 #
# Volume = <int> -125 #
OK
> vol mod -0.5
# Lineout Volume = <int> -130 #
# Volume = <int> -130 #
OK
> vol mod -0.5
# Lineout Volume = <int> -135 #
# Volume = <int> -135 #
OK
Put it to sleep if you like when under normal conditions. I only power things off when planning to be out of the house for long periods (when traveling) and in those cases I usually unplug it as well.
If you power it off then the only way to power it back on is with the front panel button. No IR or RS232 command will wake it from this state.
Many thanks! I will forward your response to my C4 dealer. I assumed he was missing something. . .
And while I have said it before, many thanks again for the great support for your product.
dCS Bartok with HP amp (14.250€) ist on my short list. Two days ago I had the opportunity to hear it with speakers and compare it with a 8.900€ streaming system (T+A MP 2500 R). What a hell of a machine the Bartok is! It just sounds not “digital”. For me it becomes more and more a must have, a hot desire, an obsession. 
Now, also 2 days ago, Amazon announced it’s entering into the market of CD quality and even hi-res streaming, which is a threat for Tidal and Qobuz and at the end for Roon, if Roon will not be able to integrate Amazon. What are the hardware suppliers doing then? Especially dCS said in this forum that it will not integrate Chromecast (as the likes of Naim or Cambridge Audio do), which could be one of the possible workarounds to stream Amazon HD, if Amazon opens that door. The questions therefore are: 1) will Amazon expose an API of their streaming service to SW and HW vendors and 2) will Roon and/or dCS use it in order to integrate Amazon streaming?
At 14k the Bartok ought to be everything you might want in a system. The Amazon stuff is a separate discussion I think. We have yet to see how much they have to offer and who they see as the competition. They may not see the work involved in Roon integration as bringing a worthwhile return. As for DCS they need to make a decision about who they include as a streaming service which I am sure they will do. Until then Roon users still have two good streaming services to lean on and I can’t see that changing soon.
Not soon, but 14k is a long term investment for me.
Bartok is not cheap, but around this price range , it don’t have any competitor
I have had the Bartok for 3 months running as follows: DSD or Tidal MQA/Qobuz > Roon Nucleus > Bartok/HP > SPL s800 amplifier > Raal Requisite SR1a “earfield” speakers. The experience has been sublime: clarity + organic richness + tight bass + spaciousness + precise instrument location in the sound stage and “hair standing up on the back of your neck” reality. I am in the process of listening to all of my collection again, appreciating nuances in the performances that I have never heard before.
I have had extensive experience with audiophile music systems, particularly TOTL headphones (AKG K1000, Audeze, Sennheiser 800, STAX SR009+BHSE and Focal Utopia. All were great. Roon + Bartok + SPL + Raal could well be my end-game system. (of course I have said that before).
I truly appreciate the excellent product that Bartok/HP represents: network streamer + DAC + HP amp. I am extremely satisfied and look forward to years of pleasure listening to great music. That’s what it is all about.
How’s your Bartok connected to Roon? RAAT (ie network) or USB directly to the Nucleus?
Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I purchased the Bartok, and I hope the below post is useful for anyone else considering the purchase of a DAC and specifically the Bartok.
My primary reason to purchase the Bartok was due to its sound quality as a DAC. However, your question emphasizes one of the other important aspects of the Bartok. Namely, that the Bartok can pass the information over ethernet rather than one of the other audio interfaces. IMHO, this shatters the sales pitch used by the manufacturers of some media centers, specifically that that we should pay more for their supposedly superior USB or AES interface to transmit audio files to a DAC or audio processor.
Andrew indirectly spoke to this point in his prior posts:
I own a media center which is essentially a PC with a theoretically higher quality AES or USB interface. Until now, that has been the claim to fame for many media centers: that their proprietary USB, AES, or coax connection is superior to transmit the audio data to a DAC.
The use of ethernet by the Bartok kills that argument entirely. Allow me to expand on Andrew’s explanation, with regards to what ethernet is utilized for. Ethernet is used, not just to transmit emails and photos, as Andrew notes, but also for business correspondence, including tens of millions of bank transactions on a daily basis. Ethernet is also used to accurately convey classified military information, including the command and control of weapons, by armed forces around the world. (Military systems also utilize fiber and satellites, as does standard consumer cable connections.) Military use requires a completely accurate transmission of digital data that follows the international engineering standards referred to by Andrew. If ethernet can be used as one method to transmit commands to control weapons, it can be used to transmit a FLAC file from a PC-based media center to a DAC such as the Bartok.
As ethernet connections are incorporated as a standard feature in DACs, the sales pitch that a particular media center is superior because of a proprietary USB or AES connection will be shown to be demonstrably false. USB or AES might sound different, but if audiophiles prefer the “different” sound of a particular USB interface from a PC to a DAC, they are, in fact, preferring an alteration to the digital signal, instead of the accurate transmittal over ethernet of the digital audio data.
My audio FLAC files reside on an external hard drive, which is connected to a windows-based media center via USB, and the media center is then connected to the Bartok via ethernet through a gigabit switch. Andrew’s response verified that this connection method makes absolutely no difference, as it is a straight forward transmission of data over a network.
This was an important reason that I seriously considered, and ultimately purchased, the Bartok. However, the audio quality of the DAC is of greater importance, and in that regard, the other key factor was my high opinion of my local dCS dealer, because his recommendations have been infallibly correct. (For any forum participants who live within driving distance of the Washington DC metro area, I strongly recommend JS Audio.) My dealer highly recommended the Bartok for the even more important audio improvement provided by the dCS Ring DAC, which is the same as used in the far more expensive Vivaldi. I tend to believe that many audiophiles hear what they want to hear, and persuade themselves that they are hearing tiny differences that might not actually exist. I have a simpler standard: using a direct comparison between my high-end Anthem processor and the Bartok, and when switching back and forth in real time, and at the same volume level, would I actually hear an improvement in ten minutes or less? The Bartok easily passed that standard.
Andrew’s explanations and support as provided here also directly influenced my decision to buy the Bartok. (dCS: give Andrew a salary bonus at the end of the year for his outstanding service for your company.)
I do have one small criticism of the Bartok, and I believe this is shared by the entire family of dCS products. When they designed the Bartok, they made the units slightly too wide – by 1/4" to 3/8" – to fit in a standard professional rack system. (At least the Bartok will not fit in rack shelves sold by Middle Atlantic.) I believe that the Vivaldi established this design width, and the Bartok simply utilized the same size. This is an incredibly dumb design. This design flaw may be shared by other high-end products, but it is really dumb nonetheless. If anyone ever wants to fit a Bartok in a rack system, you can probably do it by installing a rack shelf upside down. But it says something when you must insert a rack shelf upside down to get dCS units costing over $10,000 to fit in a professional rack system. I ultimately put the Bartok on a standard shelf. I hope the dCS engineers are reading this, and the next time they design an entire family of products, please reduce the width by 3/8" of an inch, so dCS units will fit inside a standard professional rack shelf provided for a professional rack system.
It is also unfortunate that the Bartok doesn’t include an input for an IR receiver/emitter on the back of the unit, which can be utilized by a remote system such as Control4. Apparently an input for an IR receiver was included in the original design according to Andrew, but was then dropped. dCS should include an IR input on the rear panel in all future units with remote control functions. It wouldn’t add much to the cost of manufacturing, and an input for an IR receiver would mean that a wired emitter doesn’t have to be attached to the front of the Bartok. (My Control4 dealer had no luck getting serial to work, which he said is often the case with serial commands, despite the support provided by Andrew in that regard.)
But those are small criticisms. The sound quality and design of the unit with ethernet is outstanding. And, finally, the dCS apps are very well done. Not that it matters to me, since I’m using Roon.
By the way, when I use the C4 remote, and the Bartok is selected as the source, I can use C4 to change tracks within Roon, and go forward and back through the queue within Roon, as well as pausing the Bartok with a Control4 remote, from a distance, which then pauses everything through the Roon Bartok & Bluesound system. Of course, the Roon app does the same thing, but for me it is just more convenient to pick up the hand-held C4 remote. That is a small added bonus that I didn’t expect with the Bartok – that it can remotely control some aspects of Roon, and that then applies to my Bluesound components as well.
Bottom line, if you’re looking for a DAC you should seriously consider the Bartok.
And regardless of what you buy, be certain that it includes ethernet, so you never again have to be told that some special media center with a platinum and outer space shielded USB connection is necessary, along with an extravagantly expensive USB cable.
The Bartok, and ethernet, simply wipes out those issues and demonstrates that the sales pitch from any company selling a media center, specifically and primarily for a special AES or USB interface, is utterly fallacious.
I love your train of thought that has led you to getting the Bartok. Well done already! 
Having said that, have you looked at the Audiophilestyle review of the Sonore OpticalRendu pt2? With optical/galvanic isolating properties, the review does suggest an improvement via USB of dCS Rossini over its own ethernet input. Some food for thought here. 
I have changed from the Debussy to the Bartok 2 weeks ago. I am super happy with the new dCS product. Finally I have also set my Spectral DMC30 SS G2 a side and use the Bartok as digital source, DAC and finally as Pre Amp. It works great and at ease for the listeners. It drives the Sepctral DMA260 s2 with grace and great control. I am a very happy customer and can only recommend the Bartok to those that are thinking about it. Enjoy the music.
Hello,
I use DCS Bartok with Sonore Opticalrendu. Unfortunately, almost every day you need at least twice to first turn on the DAC and then OR for both devices to start playing music. Is there a chance to improve the USB DCS Bartok port compatibility when used with streamers using Linux drivers such as Sonore Opticalrendu or SOOTm SMS-200 Ultra?
Regards Robert
My knowledge of the Sonore Opticalrendu is based only on the 5 minute Audiophilestyle review, and my short excerpt from that is that the Sonore is a “Digital to digital converter that converts ethernet audio to USB audio for output to a USB dac. . .[utilizing] ethernet over fiber optic cable. . . .Based on what I’ve heard, I don’t know if there is a better way to convert network audio to USB audio than this.”
So the purpose of the Sonore unit is to convert ethernet audio to USB audio, presumably for a DAC that only has a USB input.
But the Bartok takes ethernet directly. So why convert ethernet to USB to feed USB to the Bartok?
Based on what Andrew posted above, the final result should be inferior, since USB is not the best interface to utilize with the Bartok:
My understanding, both based on what Andrew posted here, as well as a conversation I had with Jesse Luna of dCS, is that ethernet offers advantages as an interface and means of transmission, that USB and AES simply don’t have. I hesitate to summarize their comments here, as I’m not an electrical engineer and won’t do justice to their explanation. My layman’s summary, that I offered above, is that ethernet clearly provides an accurate method to transmit data. Banks transfer billions of dollars on a daily basis over networks, and part of those networks are using standard ethernet cables. Military installations utilize ethernet as part of the command and control structure for weapons. Clearly the transmission of data over ethernet is accurate, or banks and military command and control would not utilize it as they now do – literally on a global basis.
So why not just use the ethernet connection on the Bartok? Why convert ethernet back to USB to feed USB to the Bartok?
Why would you use a rendu???
People buy into these Sonore products, simply because of their aggressive marketing.
Just read that latest Sonore Product testing by Mr. Connacker on Audiophyle Stlye. He made a Sonore switch product of the year or decade. He insists Sonore improves the sound of a DCS product sustantially.
Audiophiles tend to fall into such marketing traps.
People buy into these products because in many respects they do what they need them to do. One person may have put one into his chain unnecessarily. It also may be his personal preference, and that is OK. Let’s see what he has to say before launching into the old stereotypes of good and bad. It’s tiresome.
He perhaps owned it before and wants to test. If it works better than the Ethernet connexion of the Bartok according to his tests, what is the problem ?
If there is usb on the Bartok, we could use it.