BRYSTON BDP-1/2 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS THREAD

unincognito · « **Reply #880 on:** 20 Dec 2014, 01:30 am »

Quote from: BrystonFan on 17 Dec 2014, 10:52 pm

I'm still amazed how files on a NAS (say on the third floor) can sound the same travelling via CAT5/6 cable all the way down to the basement vs. the same files on an SSD installed in the BDP-2.

What tony said

cprem · « **Reply #881 on:** 20 Dec 2014, 05:40 am »

Hi Chris,
I have BDP1 running SW S1.75 Loony loose release. Whats the latest release of SW for BDP1?

PS: I just found the dropbox web site that guides you on how to update the BDP1/2 players to the latest "Manic Moose" release. So my question to you is that is there anyway to backup my playlist and configuration and restore it back on to newly release S/W? If not will this (backup) feature be implemented on the Manic Moose release?

Regards

Chetan

R. Daneel · « **Reply #882 on:** 20 Dec 2014, 01:20 pm »

Quote from: unincognito on 20 Dec 2014, 01:30 am

A BDP-1 should handle 192khz just fine, you should try upgrading the firmware. That firmware will require the BDP placed into service mode to be updated by us. Service mode is covered on page 24 or 26 in the manic moose manual.

Cheers
Chris

Hi Chris!

Okay, so I should place the BDP-1 in service mode and you'll do the rest? If so, please let me know when I should do that and if I'm allowed to use it while it is in service mode.

Cheers!
Antun

BrystonFan · « **Reply #883 on:** 22 Dec 2014, 11:20 pm »

Quote from: unincognito on 20 Dec 2014, 01:30 am

What tony said

Thanks guys.
NAS still the way to go...in terms of overall flexibility and access.

BrystonFan · « **Reply #884 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 11:14 pm »

Seeing as the BCD-2 is not on the Bryston agenda for 2015

, I might as well start ripping my CD collection to FLAC. I will be using dBpoweramp, how do you handle file structure and cd albums with 2 or more discs.
One album folder name or 2 separate ones, folder or cover jpg?
Thanks

Grit · « **Reply #885 on:** 30 Dec 2014, 11:51 pm »

That kinda depends on you want to see the files. My preference is for all songs to be in one folder, even if there are multiple discs. It'll really come down to how you have dBpoweramp name the files (and create folder) when you rip them. I love dBPoweramp's quality (its what I use), but the macro function to create file names is less than user friendly.

I cut the default macro, put it in a text editor, and then formatted it so I could readily see/understand it. Then, I'd copy it to a second text file, delete all the unnecessary spaces, then copy that back into dBpoweramp. Took some doing, but once it's done, you don't need to redo it.

black orange · « **Reply #886 on:** 31 Dec 2014, 01:25 am »

Hello everyone and Seasons Greetings

I need help as I am thoroughly confused. I need something to get music files stored on my NAS into my DAC. I have read many forum posts on this site and others and have narrowed down the choices but need help in finalising one of these.

I am currently using a laptop with Win server 2012, Audiophile Optimiser and JRiver, USB out into my DAC. Files are on a Synology NAS. Flac and Wave.

I wanted to get something better than my noisy laptop.

The price of each of these options are given below. Hope that helps you all in suggesting something.

Bryston BDP -1 - $1700
Aires - $2000
Zuma with linear PS - $2300 (APPX)

-----------------

I heard the NAD M50, Auralic Aris and Bryston BDP-1 recently.
Music was on a usb stick. NAD M50 via coax, Bryston via AES and Auralic via USB cable into the same dac (Auralic Vega). All other equipment was the same.

My observations as follows:

NAD M50: At first I liked the sound. Fairly detailed but I soon realised it was infact harsh. The top end was extended but it was almost grating with some recordings. I liked the air around the instruments but ultimately too rough and sibilant.

Bryston BDP-1: I really liked this. Excellent bottom end. In control top end. No Sibilance. Real authority to the music. Slightly warm sounding. Less air around the instruments than the NAD. IMHO clearly better than the NAD M50.

Auralic Aries: Nice top end. More detail compared to the Bryston but not brittle like the NAD. However lacked the bottom end of the bryston. Somehow music sounded a little flat compared to the Bryston.

Therefore for me the NAD is out. I liked the Bryston and also the aries even though they sound quite different. I wish the Bryston had a slightly more extended top end.

I still need to try and work out how the Auralic Aries sounds compared to a CAPS with Win server and AO. Any comments in this regard is appreciated.

Also does the firmware in the BDP-1 change the sound in anyway?

The BDP-1 I heard was running the original 0.XX firmware so not sure if newer firmwares have made any changes.

Ultrarunner · « **Reply #887 on:** 31 Dec 2014, 05:09 am »

Would anyone care to comment on the sound quality differences between the BDP-1 USB and Auraliti PK90USB?

I have been contented with my PK90 for the last couple of years. I recently tried the Auralic Aries as a possible upgrade but it doesn't seem to be compatible with my DAC. Since the PK90 works, I assume the BDP-1 USB would also be compatible, given Auraliti's involvement in it's creation. I understand the Bryston does internet radio, which the PK90 does not. Plus it does DSD. However I would only be interested in trading up if the sound quality is at least a little better.

Tympani · « **Reply #888 on:** 31 Dec 2014, 04:00 pm »

Re: the last 2 posters. I think you will find this thread is generally frequented by folks who own the Bryston units, and are trying to get the best performance from their equipment. I doubt you'll get much feedback regarding comparisons with other devices. I'd be happy if someone proves me wrong. Cheers, and Happy New Year.

So There · « **Reply #889 on:** 31 Dec 2014, 06:47 pm »

BrystonFan, on the naming conventions for files, I would agree with Garrett. It's a shift of mindset from spinning discs, but on my BDP-2, there's no need to separate files into disc 1, disc 2, unless such separation conveys significant information to you (for example, your favorite selection is track 2 of disc 2). Of course, you have the title of the selection, but with classical works this can sometimes be repetitive or obtuse. For BDP owners, the Bryston web app, Manic Moose, does a good job of displaying album information.

Happy listening,

Rich
________________
Whiney Napa Valley

black orange · « **Reply #890 on:** 1 Jan 2015, 04:02 am »

Quote from: Tympani on 31 Dec 2014, 04:00 pm

Re: the last 2 posters. I think you will find this thread is generally frequented by folks who own the Bryston units, and are trying to get the best performance from their equipment. I doubt you'll get much feedback regarding comparisons with other devices. I'd be happy if someone proves me wrong. Cheers, and Happy New Year.

I understand but wanted to add my observations of the differences between the digital transports.
My main question for the members of this forum is if the newer firmware changes the sound of the
bryston players in anyway.

I know for a fact there are changes to the sounds of the players like the Auralic aries with different firmware.

ttsto · « **Reply #891 on:** 1 Jan 2015, 08:47 am »

I own BDP-1 for some time now and did now witnessed any change in sound with firmware upgrades and with different versions of mpd

Ultrarunner · « **Reply #892 on:** 2 Jan 2015, 01:09 am »

Is Tidal integration in the works?

James Tanner · « **Reply #893 on:** 2 Jan 2015, 10:53 am »

Quote from: Ultrarunner on 2 Jan 2015, 01:09 am

Is Tidal integration in the works?

Yes it is but Chris can tell you more.

james

R. Daneel · « **Reply #894 on:** 2 Jan 2015, 05:49 pm »

@ Black Orange & Ultrarunner

NAD M50 would have greater processing capability than Bryston BDP-1 due to it's powerful ARM processors compared to AMD Geode in the Bryston. It also has an integrated CD drive and host of other user-interface features. However, Bryston proved to be a more refined-sounding player. This is impossible to discriminate in a direct A-B comparison but those never really proved useful in my experience. Bryston brings out more musical involvement, not necessarily more detail or dynamics. It builds on the strengths of your existing DAC. The NAD, on the other hand, didn't strike me as such. Bryston sounded if as though it "went with the flow" intead of hand-waving "I am here!". NAD seems to draw more attention on itself with a bit of a luminance which others may percieve as greater detail resolution. Not at all I believe because not one instrument sounded more real to me because of this. It was more an impression of detail than anything else. The lack of this made Bryston a little bit smoother and effortless -sounding but regardless of this, I still believe Bryston left a greater emotional impact on me. A hair more smoothness in Emma Johnson's clariner or a thouch more roundness in the electrifying intro of John Petrucci's guitar... This is why Bryston (once again) prevailed. The guarantee and customer support were the extra few points on the Bryston's side.

In the technical sense, both NAD and Bryston are indistingushable one from another. Stereophile measurements suggest this and in fact, NAD should have a slightly quieter jitter-induced distortion but at well under -125dB, I can imagine this would be impossible to hear.

I hope this helps!
Cheers!
Antun

Ultrarunner · « **Reply #895 on:** 3 Jan 2015, 01:56 am »

Thanks for the feedback Antun. I have a pretty revealing system so I would likely hear the things you describe. The BDP-1/2 seem to get good reviews so it seems a safe bet, although taking one home and trying it will be the real test.

black orange · « **Reply #896 on:** 3 Jan 2015, 08:40 am »

Quote from: R. Daneel on 2 Jan 2015, 05:49 pm

@ Black Orange & Ultrarunner

NAD M50 would have greater processing capability than Bryston BDP-1 due to it's powerful ARM processors compared to AMD Geode in the Bryston. It also has an integrated CD drive and host of other user-interface features. However, Bryston proved to be a more refined-sounding player. This is impossible to discriminate in a direct A-B comparison but those never really proved useful in my experience. Bryston brings out more musical involvement, not necessarily more detail or dynamics. It builds on the strengths of your existing DAC. The NAD, on the other hand, didn't strike me as such. Bryston sounded if as though it "went with the flow" intead of hand-waving "I am here!". NAD seems to draw more attention on itself with a bit of a luminance which others may percieve as greater detail resolution. Not at all I believe because not one instrument sounded more real to me because of this. It was more an impression of detail than anything else. The lack of this made Bryston a little bit smoother and effortless -sounding but regardless of this, I still believe Bryston left a greater emotional impact on me. A hair more smoothness in Emma Johnson's clariner or a thouch more roundness in the electrifying intro of John Petrucci's guitar... This is why Bryston (once again) prevailed. The guarantee and customer support were the extra few points on the Bryston's side.

In the technical sense, both NAD and Bryston are indistingushable one from another. Stereophile measurements suggest this and in fact, NAD should have a slightly quieter jitter-induced distortion but at well under -125dB, I can imagine this would be impossible to hear.

I hope this helps!
Cheers!
Antun

Thanks Antun

I too felt that with the bryston I connected with the music better.

I am still deciding between Aries and the Bryston as I prefered the Bryston but the Aries was more extended and had more detail but just did not have that emotional impact. The bryston was brand new and not run in and also the firmware on the bryston was the outdated. Not sure if the bryston will be able to match it with newer firmware and if it is run in a bit.

regards
K

black orange · « **Reply #897 on:** 3 Jan 2015, 08:41 am »

Also very keen to find out if the BDP-1 can run Tidal.

BrystonFan · « **Reply #898 on:** 3 Jan 2015, 10:04 pm »

Quote from: So There on 31 Dec 2014, 06:47 pm

BrystonFan, on the naming conventions for files, I would agree with Garrett. It's a shift of mindset from spinning discs, but on my BDP-2, there's no need to separate files into disc 1, disc 2, unless such separation conveys significant information to you (for example, your favorite selection is track 2 of disc 2). Of course, you have the title of the selection, but with classical works this can sometimes be repetitive or obtuse. For BDP owners, the Bryston web app, Manic Moose, does a good job of displaying album information.

Happy listening,

Rich
________________
Whiney Napa Valley

Thank you Gentlemen.
I tried ripping the latest U2 deluxe cd (2 discs) using the default dBpoweramp settings and it created 2 folders for each disc. I would like to have these in one folder for the album on the drive. I figured I would start with the Multi disc and compilation CDs in my ripping saga for future use in my BDP-2

Grit · « **Reply #899 on:** 4 Jan 2015, 07:33 am »

That's best... single CD's are comparatively easy.

The easiest solutions is to add "Disc 1" or "Disc 2" to the file name, but put them all in the same folder. This way, the files will display in order on the discs (since "Disc 1" alphabetically comes before "Disc 2"), but all in the same folder on the BDP-2. It should still display the correct metadata on the display though.