[Marius]

I have been interested in the 205 for the same reason to see if it would be better than the 105-in this hobby you always look for better and it's easy to be seduced by the notion of better.

However as I recall from memory possibly the area that struck me as most improved on the BDA-3 was actually SACD through HDMI. However even if that is not 100% correct there is no aspect of swapping inputs (and I do a fair bit) that would indicate the existing jitter is in any way noticeable. Though that's not to say you wouldn't hear a difference between the 105 and the 205. I still await the first person to have tried the combo.

Thanks,
Noticeable or not, it is what Bryston has always stated. HDMI is inferior to SPDIF. I took and still take that for my audiophile truth. It's also the reason for my big question: why did Bryston take out these better inputs (which btw make the BDA's standout from the crowd) and replace them with 4 inferior HDMI inputs.


Its a bit like shifting the 4 HDMI ports on just about any modern TV to the BDA    and giving up on the 'audiophile' SPDIF. Of course it's done the Bryston way, top notch, but still. I for one would love these SPDifs reinstated on a BDA-3+.


Hope James will answer my question in this regard.


Cheers,
Marius

[CanadianMaestro]

Once Bryston restores a BNC and an SDIF RCA jack, I will get a BDA-4.

Until then, BDA-1 is still King of the Roost here at home. 
Love the BNC (and AES for my BDP).

[James Tanner]

Hi James,

I have few questions for you if I may.

1 Is the built-in DAC of the SP3 good enough voor the BDP-3 or is the BDA-3 a (much) better choice?

2 Is it okay to place a BDP-3 on the BDA-3 or can I expect heath problems?

Thanks,

Willy

Hi Willy

The DAC in the SP3 is a great DAC but it is designed for multichannel sound more so than stereo so I will give the nod to the BDA3 as our premium DAC if stereo digital state of the art is the major playback situation.

The BDA 3 will run hotter than the BDA3 so if you have the choice put the BDP on top of the BDA.

james

[James Tanner]

Thanks,
Noticeable or not, it is what Bryston has always stated. HDMI is inferior to SPDIF. I took and still take that for my audiophile truth. It's also the reason for my big question: why did Bryston take out these better inputs (which btw make the BDA's standout from the crowd) and replace them with 4 inferior HDMI inputs.


Its a bit like shifting the 4 HDMI ports on just about any modern TV to the BDA    and giving up on the 'audiophile' SPDIF. Of course it's done the Bryston way, top notch, but still. I for one would love these SPDifs reinstated on a BDA-3+.


Hope James will answer my question in this regard.


Cheers,
Marius

Hi Marius,

Sadly the number of audiophiles out there interested in a quality DAC is very limited and the HDMI was requested by a number of our dealers as they felt it would make the BDA3 much more appealing to a larger audience not to mention very few DACs actually can do high quality HDMI playback at all.

Also remember we are talking about very small numbers anyway so many feel these issues are below the threshold of hearing.

james

[Marius]

Appreciated James, I follow what your saying.
Sadly though I feel Bryston has made their Dac more mainstream than industry leading. And even if that wouldn’t be important, which is indeed up for discussion , it simply has lost half of the necessary inputs...as said , the 4 hdmi’s can simply be routed over any somewhat modern tv ( been doing that ever since you’ve released the Bda1). The Spdifs are gone and can not be replaced 

Anyway, hope most fervently your next Dac will have these superior Spdif inputs reinstated.
Cheers
Marius

 

Hi Marius,

Sadly the number of audiophiles out there interested in a quality DAC is very limited and the HDMI was requested by a number of our dealers as they felt it would make the BDA3 much more appealing to a larger audience not to mention very few DACs actually can do high quality HDMI playback at all.

Also remember we are talking about very small numbers anyway so many feel these issues are below the threshold of hearing.

james

[BSC]

Thanks,
Noticeable or not, it is what Bryston has always stated. HDMI is inferior to SPDIF. I took and still take that for my audiophile truth. It's also the reason for my big question: why did Bryston take out these better inputs (which btw make the BDA's standout from the crowd) and replace them with 4 inferior HDMI inputs.


Its a bit like shifting the 4 HDMI ports on just about any modern TV to the BDA    and giving up on the 'audiophile' SPDIF. Of course it's done the Bryston way, top notch, but still. I for one would love these SPDifs reinstated on a BDA-3+.


Hope James will answer my question in this regard.


Cheers,
Marius

I will confess I struggle a bit with your posts sometimes it's as if you have a BDA-3 and other times it seems you don't.

I will agree 4 HDMI inputs is overkill. However there are 2 SPDIF inputs and overall the DAC caters for just about any input you require. It can't of course cover every eventuality for every person.

But the fact remains the HDMI capability of the BDA-3 is an unique and very tempting proposition for those who want to utilise taking SACD and Blu Ray Audio stereo replay at a higher quality than most universal players can deliver within cost context. That's the appeal and it delivers and I think you only need to the BDA-3 taking in a signal from HDMI and delivering wonderful stereo.

Have you compared the two inputs?

[BSC]

Appreciated James, I follow what your saying.
Sadly though I feel Bryston has made their Dac more mainstream than industry leading. And even if that wouldn’t be important, which is indeed up for discussion , it simply has lost half of the necessary inputs...as said , the 4 hdmi’s can simply be routed over any somewhat modern tv ( been doing that ever since you’ve released the Bda1). The Spdifs are gone and can not be replaced 

Anyway, hope most fervently your next Dac will have these superior Spdif inputs reinstated.
Cheers
Marius

It's actually a DAC designed for Audiophiles who use all the available digital formats. It couldn't be any less mainstream unless SACD and Blu Ray Audio are mainstream. I think you are looking through the telescope the wrong way. You haven't lost anything you've gained something and as James has stated-this is their audiophile flagship DAC.

[Marius]

I will confess I struggle a bit with your posts sometimes it's as if you have a BDA-3 and other times it seems you don't.

I will agree 4 HDMI inputs is overkill. However there are 2 SPDIF inputs and overall the DAC caters for just about any input you require. It can't of course cover every eventuality for every person.

But the fact remains the HDMI capability of the BDA-3 is an unique and very tempting proposition for those who want to utilise taking SACD and Blu Ray Audio stereo replay at a higher quality than most universal players can deliver within cost context. That's the appeal and it delivers and I think you only need to the BDA-3 taking in a signal from HDMI and delivering wonderful stereo.

Have you compared the two inputs?

HI BSC,
NO i don't have a BDA3, im tempted,  but need the SPDIfs, and to a lesser extent the extra optical, the BDA1 offers, and the BDA3 has lost. Hence my question whether an upgraded BDA3+ is to be expected.


Im not stating the 4 HDMI ports are overkill. In fact, i have all 4 of them connected and used frequently in my setup. And route them to my BDA1's optical input. It's more that i need the lost SPDIF (and optical) inputs.


HDMI isn't unique, though very nice indeed. Probably much better and more convenient than the hassle of my currently tested HDMI deembedder. Still, it gets the job done.
Please don't start about the cost object, since Bryston always is on the rather expensive side of things.. The Oppo 205 costs about half the BDA3, and gets one a superior Universal disc spinner included. The de-embedder costs 60 euro/$.


Havent had the BDA3 here, hope to have anytime soon. I'd compare the 2 DAC's on SPDIF firstly though. Of course the de-embedding would be second.


But since SACD/BD audio is kind of a niche product, i can't help but wondering why such a superior design would be changed for just a handful of bd owners like myself. It must have been the mainstream HDMI found on just about any video device that triggered the design decision. Larger audience is what it boils down to. Probably healthy thinking.


Maybe someday the 2 shall meet.
Cheers,
Marius

[BSC]

HI BSC,
NO i don't have a BDA3, im tempted,  but need the SPDIfs, and to a lesser extent the extra optical, the BDA1 offers, and the BDA3 has lost. Hence my question whether an upgraded BDA3+ is to be expected.


Im not stating the 4 HDMI ports are overkill. In fact, i have all 4 of them connected and used frequently in my setup. And route them to my BDA1's optical input. It's more that i need the lost SPDIF (and optical) inputs.


HDMI isn't unique, though very nice indeed. Probably much better and more convenient than the hassle of my currently tested HDMI deembedder. Still, it gets the job done.
Please don't start about the cost object, since Bryston always is on the rather expensive side of things.. The Oppo 205 costs about half the BDA3, and gets one a superior Universal disc spinner included. The de-embedder costs 60 euro/$.


Havent had the BDA3 here, hope to have anytime soon. I'd compare the 2 DAC's on SPDIF firstly though. Of course the de-embedding would be second.


But since SACD/BD audio is kind of a niche product, i can't help but wondering why such a superior design would be changed for just a handful of bd owners like myself. It must have been the mainstream HDMI found on just about any video device that triggered the design decision. Larger audience is what it boils down to. Probably healthy thinking.


Maybe someday the 2 shall meet.
Cheers,
Marius

So being an audiophile isn't niche? You complain the BDA-3 is mainstream then suggest that SACD and Blu Ray Audio are niche. Seems a bit confused to me.

If you are serious about the capabilities of the BDA-3 I would say the universal aspect is a big part of things although "normal" stereo replay on the BDA-3 should blow you away. I have read but obviously can't confirm the Oppo 205 isn't a noticeably better stereo machine than the 105-has led to some returns etc.

The BDA-3 stereo replay in my system eclipses the Oppo 105-a big step up.

I don't really see why anyone who wasn't an audiophile would go for a BDA-3 for me it took universal replay to a much higher level without getting into the absolutely big money players-that's what I would guess it's appeal and I think James is alluding to advice in the context of competing in a very tight market....for audiophiles.

Mainstream isn't going to pay $3.5K for a DAC and it's even more expensive here in the UK.

The only solution is to audition the DAC.

But out of interest I am going to play some CD's through the HDMI input of my BDA-3 and compare them to SPDIF and give you my findings.

[Marius]

audiophile versus mainstream, we shouldn't be bothered maybe. What's in these words after all. Just want best of both worlds, the extra HDMI's and the former inputs. Made by Bryston.


Don't have the BDA3, but eclipsing the BDA1 would be unexpected. Evolutional as James says most of the time. Very tempting indeed though.
Thanks for the comparing bit, love to hear your findings. 


sound quality wouldn't be my main driver for an upgrade here, functionality would. HDMI, DSD, USB 2. CD's would still be played on my BCD-1, never heard it bettered yet. (didnt hear the BCD 3 of course..)


Cheers,
Marius

So being an audiophile isn't niche? You complain the BDA-3 is mainstream then suggest that SACD and Blu Ray Audio are niche. Seems a bit confused to me.

If you are serious about the capabilities of the BDA-3 I would say the universal aspect is a big part of things although "normal" stereo replay on the BDA-3 should blow you away. I have read but obviously can't confirm the Oppo 205 isn't a noticeably better stereo machine than the 105-has led to some returns etc.

The BDA-3 stereo replay in my system eclipses the Oppo 105-a big step up.

I don't really see why anyone who wasn't an audiophile would go for a BDA-3 for me it took universal replay to a much higher level without getting into the absolutely big money players-that's what I would guess it's appeal and I think James is alluding to advice in the context of competing in a very tight market....for audiophiles.

Mainstream isn't going to pay $3.5K for a DAC and it's even more expensive here in the UK.

The only solution is to audition the DAC.

But out of interest I am going to play some CD's through the HDMI input of my BDA-3 and compare them to SPDIF and give you my findings.

[zoom25]

I don't have a BDA-3 (yet!)...however, I'm in favour of keeping the HDMI inputs because of the convenience, even if it is more jittery. You still benefit from BDA-3. I initially thought maybe I could trade 1 or 2 HDMI for other inputs, but then actually counted my devices and 4 seems decent. Don't need any fewer....PS3, Apple TV, dedicated Blu ray or media player, IPTV. That's 4 right there.

On the other hand, I personally don't need coaxial. In fact, I have more use for optical even. Majority of the common day to day devices use either optical or HDMI. Coaxial not so much. For high-end fidelity gear like the BDP or BCD, I would go with AES if needed. Coaxial isn't needed that much.

On the other hand, another AES would have been solid. Double USB input is also welcomed.

[James Tanner]

Hi Folks,

In order of which connection is the best for inherent low jitter:

USB - best, then COAX (BNC or RCA), then Optical, then HDMI

james

[CanadianMaestro]

George Cardas, who used to work in the signal transmission industry, astutely pointed out that the main problem with optical signals is that the light signal still needs to be converted back to an electrical one (electrons) at the source (DAC usually). That extra step, at least in audio apps, is fatal if one is a purist and desires minimal jitter. Not surprisingly, it is inferior to coax and USB.

[James Tanner]

George Cardas, who used to work in the signal transmission industry, astutely pointed out that the main problem with optical signals is that the light signal still needs to be converted back to an electrical one (electrons) at the source (DAC usually). That extra step, at least in audio apps, is fatal if one is a purist and desires minimal jitter. Not surprisingly, it is inferior to coax and USB.

Hi

Actually with Optical there are 2 conversions - one from the sending unit and one at the receiving unit. One advantage of Optical is it will eliminate any grounding problems.

james

[CanadianMaestro]

Hi

Actually with Optical there are 2 conversions - one from the sending unit and one at the receiving unit. One advantage of Optical is it will eliminate any grounding problems.

james

I stand corrected, thank you.

I would think that AES and coax have minimal grounding issues in a well designed system. But the added jitter that extra conversion steps will likely introduce is a killer.

[zoom25]

So where does the AES fall on that list?

[James Tanner]

So where does the AES fall on that list?

AES is a COAX connection.

james

[srb]

AES is a COAX connection.

While S/PDIF is the consumer version of AES-EBU, the AES3 XLR connection uses a 110Ω shielded twisted pair cable rather than a coaxial cable as in electrical S/PDIF.

[CanadianMaestro]

Good reading for a lazy summer day on an Ontario beach 

http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/TransLines.pdf

AES sounds great on my BDP-BDA connection. 

[Grit]

Already answered. aes/ebu = coax