[James Tanner]

Hi Ed

The internal connections between the BDA3.14 and BR20 are different.

The BDA3.14 internally is using the I2S connection between the streamer and the DAC, the streamer re-clocks the incoming stream, additionally, the I2S bitstream is re-clocked again to attenuate jitter before it goes to the DAC.
The BR20 internally uses a USB connection between the streamer and the DAC, which depending on how it is implemented, can be superior to I2S, it also supports higher bitrates and native DSD playback. The streamer re-clocks the incoming stream, the USB receiver receives the audio packets and recompiles it into an I2S bitstream using a  very accurate clock. This I2S bitstream is re-clocked one more time before going to the DAC.

With all the re-clocking that's already being done in both the BDA3.14 and BR20, I don't know if any external re-clocking device would have a big impact on the sound.

james

[Francois_Tardif]

Thank you James. Very interesting. Can you also explain what is done to the audio signal (the path, re-clocking,...) when the system consist of a (BDP-3 + BDA-3) combo. And the Similarities/Differences if connection between the two units is AES/EBU, USB or S/PDIF.

François

[James Tanner]

Thank you James. Very interesting. Can you also explain what is done to the audio signal (the path, re-clocking,...) when the system consist of a (BDP-3 + BDA-3) combo. And the Similarities/Differences if connection between the two units is AES/EBU, USB or S/PDIF.

François

Hi Francois

The BDP-3 would be similar in function to the Pi4 in the BR20 but the BDP-3 is far more capable as a processor over the Pi4. If you use the USB input on the BDA3 then it would be the same as the BR20. AESEBU is a Balanced signal and SPDIF is a standard digital interface.  The AES and the SPDIF both have impedance matching transformers and re-clocking devices at the input.

james

[Francois_Tardif]

Thanks for the reply James. Excuse my lack of knowledge, but in terms of reducing (or eliminating) jitter, how would you rank these options from best to worst?

1) BR-20
2) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) USB
3) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) AES/EBU
4) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) SPDIF

François

[Sasha]

Thanks for the reply James. Excuse my lack of knowledge, but in terms of reducing (or eliminating) jitter, how would you rank these options from best to worst?

1) BR-20
2) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) USB
3) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) AES/EBU
4) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) SPDIF

François

You would want to add BDA-3.14 to get the whole picture.

[James Tanner]

Thanks for the reply James. Excuse my lack of knowledge, but in terms of reducing (or eliminating) jitter, how would you rank these options from best to worst?

1) BR-20
2) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) USB
3) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) AES/EBU
4) (BDP-3 + BDA-3) SPDIF

François

\

First I would say the amount of jitter exhibited by good quality engineering is so far down in most cases it's a mote point.

1. Would depend on which input you used.

USB would have the least amount of jitter
AES and SPDIF would be similar
HDMI the highest jitter.

As for the BDA-3 and BDP-3 again depends on which input but same as above.

I will say it again though - you are talking about jitter levels in Bryston gear so far below the hearing threshold where it would impact the performance as to be inconsequential.

james

[Sasha]

I could not characterize the jitter levels as inconsequential and below the hearing threshold, since my own experience, in blind tests, with several participants, led to undeniable conclusion that the choice of digital input, transport, and consequently the jitter, had clearly audible impact, with unanimous preference of Ethernet over USB or AES, heard on superbly engineered BR-20-like product costing 16K USD. Re-clocking does not eliminate jitter, all it can do is change its audible character. The clearly audible superiority of and unanimous preference for Ethernet input can be explained only by the fact that rendering happens inside the unit, without any need for re-clocking, with digital audio signal sent directly to DAC chip input over I2S. The same was observed on another less costly BR-20-like product.
 

[James Tanner]

I could not characterize the jitter levels as inconsequential and below the hearing threshold, since my own experience, in blind tests, with several participants, led to undeniable conclusion that the choice of digital input, transport, and consequently the jitter, had clearly audible impact, with unanimous preference of Ethernet over USB or AES, heard on superbly engineered BR-20-like product costing 16K USD. Re-clocking does not eliminate jitter, all it can do is change its audible character. The clearly audible superiority of and unanimous preference for Ethernet input can be explained only by the fact that rendering happens inside the unit, without any need for re-clocking, with digital audio signal sent directly to DAC chip input over I2S. The same was observed on another less costly BR-20-like product.

Hi Sasha

Ok I guess I feel the implementation of the interface is far more critical than whether it is USB or Ethernet but that's just been my experience so far in blind tests.

james

[zoom25]

I think DarqueKnight has the BDP-3 and BDA-3 with EtherRegen? He's also done a bit of experimenting with network switches and different storages for playback.

I've also tested every option out here with my BDP-1 here (USB vs. AES. SPDIF/BNC) and USB storage (flash drives, portable 2.5" drive, external 3.5" - all w/ or w/o Jitterbug) vs. NAS and like 5 different network switches and routers (both 100Mbps and Gigabit) with or without linear power supply. Network option isn't immune either. Currently using a dedicated Cisco router as a switch in between the BDP-1 and NAS. I even did a bridge option once that let me connect my iMac or MacBook Pro connect directly to the BDP-1 via ethernet without a router or switch in between. Difference still exists for whatever reason.

There may be benefit to using an Etherregen with the way things are at the moment. I have not tried the product myself so don't know how it sounds, but I know these things can absolutely impact SQ. I'm not sure if the BDPs are sensitive to incoming noise and/or timing or signal quality?

[Sasha]

Hi Sasha

Ok I guess I feel the implementation of the interface is far more critical than whether it is USB or Ethernet but that's just been my experience so far in blind tests.

james

Yes, the implementation is quite important, for example in the same system during the same testing I tried to see if there was any audible difference between USB input being fed from a battery powered notebook without any other device present on USB network and the same USB interface being fed from a  typical switching PSU powered PC with many devices on USB network (mouse, keyboard, camera, etc.).
The audible difference was staggering, really an eye opener.  It showed that re-clocking did not eliminate jitter, and technically it was really the difference in the amount of jitter.

[James Tanner]

Hi Sasha

Well I guess I do not hear the vast differences in the various inputs on BDP-3, BDA3 or BR-20 that you do in your experiments.  But hey perceived differences are part of this great audio hobby.

james

[Sasha]

Hi Sasha

Well I guess I do not hear the vast differences in the various inputs on BDP-3, BDA3 or BR-20 that you do in your experiments.  But hey perceived differences are part of this great audio hobby.

james

Yes, great hobby and quite expensive one two
The quality of engineering put into BR-20 and the promise of great performance was the reason I bought it. Once I receive it I will compare it to the mentioned much more expensive product. I will be very interesting and I suspect BR-20 will hold the ground very well.
 
 

[James Tanner]

Yes, great hobby and quite expensive one two
The quality of engineering put into BR-20 and the promise of great performance was the reason I bought it. Once I receive it I will compare it to the mentioned much more expensive product. I will be very interesting and I suspect BR-20 will hold the ground very well.
 

Hi Sasha - I will be very interested in your assessment.

james

[fbny71]

James, I asked this in the "NEXT BRYSTON PRODUCT 2021" but maybe this is the better thread to pose my question:

I currently have a BP-17 with both the DAC and phono card upgrades. I'm quite interested in upgrading to the BR-20 mostly for the DAC improvement over the internal card in my BP-17. My dilemma is that a reel to reel deck is still an integral part of my system so a tape loop is a necessity for me.

Which is the better of the following options:

• Keep my BP-17 and add a BDA-3
• Upgrade to BR-20 with HDMI upgrade and add a 0.5B or 1B for BOTH tape loop and phono duties
• Upgrade to BR-20 with HDMI and phono add a 0.5B or 1B for tape loop duties ONLY

[James Tanner]

James, I asked this in the "NEXT BRYSTON PRODUCT 2021" but maybe this is the better thread to pose my question:

I currently have a BP-17 with both the DAC and phono card upgrades. I'm quite interested in upgrading to the BR-20 mostly for the DAC improvement over the internal card in my BP-17. My dilemma is that a reel to reel deck is still an integral part of my system so a tape loop is a necessity for me.

Which is the better of the following options:

• Keep my BP-17 and add a BDA-3
• Upgrade to BR-20 with HDMI upgrade and add a 0.5B or 1B for BOTH tape loop and phono duties
• Upgrade to BR-20 with HDMI and phono add a 0.5B or 1B for tape loop duties ONLY

Hi fbny

I think probably number 3 would be the best option assuming you get a reasonable return on the sale of your BP17.  Otherwise I think number 1 would be the best option.  Do you have a lot of digital sources - getting the BDA3 for just one source just seems like an expensive option. Also unless you need HDMI the BR20 is available without HDMI and that would save you a few dollars.

Are there not stand along Tap in/Tape out type products rather than having to use a .5B or 1B?

james

[fbny71]

Hi fbny

I think probably number 3 would be the best option assuming you get a reasonable return on the sale of your BP17.  Otherwise I think number 1 would be the best option.  Do you have a lot of digital sources - getting the BDA3 for just one source just seems like an expensive option. Also unless you need HDMI the BR20 is available without HDMI and that would save you a few dollars.

Are there not stand along Tap in/Tape out type products rather than having to use a .5B or 1B?

james

The one digital source I use mainly is an Apple Mac mini as Roon core connected through the SPDIF coax out of a BUC-1. I do also have a Bluray player and a TV connected as digital sources which are used less often.

I'd have to look into other tape loop products seeing as no matter how I do this I'd be adding another box. I guess adding a BDA-3 would be the path of least resistance!

As always, thanks for your input.

[James Tanner]

Hi fbny

I was thinking about your system and I will have to check this with engineering but on the BP17 I believe you can have one set of your preamplifier outputs controlled by the volume control and one set is at unity gain. So I was thinking you could use the unity gain outputs to feed your Reel to Reel and then have the outputs from the Reel to Reel go back into one of the high level inputs on the BP17.  That way it would act like a Tape-Loop for you.

james

[R. Daneel]

Hi!

There are no standalone tape-loop products. There are only prodcuts to expand on the single tape-loop which the preamp / integrated amp still must have.

It was commonly used with analogue recording equipment since you could switch between original input signal and the signal being recorded in real time.

Not directly related to this, but many preamps have inputs designated as recorder-in and outputs designated as recorder-out. This is highly misleading because if there is no source/recorder switch on the front panel, it is not a tape-loop feature because you won't be able to monitor the recorded signal in real time.

This, among others, was one of the distinguishing features of 3-head tape machines compared to 2-head ones back in the day.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Cheers,
Antun

[R. Daneel]

To add on my previous post, the tape-loop has kind of lost it's purpose because with digital recorders the only viable setting is the level, inlike analogue machines where there were many parameters that had to be set and the best way to set them was t monitor the signal as it was being recorded. Hence the tape-loop feature.

At this point, if your pream doesn't have a tape-loop input, you are out of luck. The only thing you can do is connect a pair of headphones to the recorded and then use it's source/tape switch to check the settings, presuming the recorder has a headphone output.

This is a simple matter but it complicates things for me a lot. I think BP-26 and BP-6 as well as B60 have tape-loop feature. I also know for a fact my beloved Denon amplifier does not. The previous model had two tape loops and this one has none, in favor of digital inputs. If Denon has done this and they have a long and proud analogue history, then we're really through with tape loops.

Cheers,
Antun

[fbny71]

The BP-17 cubed has:

Record Input
Though this input can be used as a standard analog input, the previously selected input will still accept audio. This special input allows for monitoring of audio coming back in from a recorder that is currently receiving audio from the fixed level outputs on the back of the BP-173.

That is where I currently connect my reel.