[quote=“Wdw, post:19, topic:15089”]
I am hoping you could elaborate the differences, if any, on the networking capabilities between the Bridge and the Rossini.[/quote]
The Bridge supports WiFi and the Rossini / Vivaldi do not. That’s the only difference in networking capabilities.
The card used in the Rossini and Vivaldi was co-developed with dCS and Stream. This board has some functionality that is more or less specific to the needs of dCS when implementing network streaming inside one of their control board-based products (either the Rossini DAC or Vivaldi upsampler). This was a limited availability product and as far as I know dCS is the only company using them.
The card used in the Bridge is an extension of the card used in the Vivaldi / Rossini and has a couple of additional features with the most notable being the addition of easily-implemented WiFi. This is essentially the mainstream version of the Rossini card which has some added features which makes it appealing to a wider range of manufacturers. This is the card that will end up in everything from just about everyone. Due to economies of scale this card is also a bit less expensive and since WiFi and cost containment were two primary requirements for the Bridge it’s a perfect choice.
No. This wouldn’t be an upgrade as there is nothing in the newer card that has any impact on the dCS feature set or sound quality. Newer / higher model numbers don’t always mean better!
Yes. The improvement is consistent with adding an external clock to any dCS-based system. One of my favorite applications for the Bridge is to pair it with the Vivaldi DAC using the DAC’s internal clock as the master. Works extremely well and sounds fantastic. Makes the Vivaldi / Bridge combo a very compelling alternative to the Rossini / Clock combo. The only caveat here is that the cables (2AES and 1 clock) need to be up to the task and those cables can easily cost more than the Bridge.