[brucek]

I would have to think that Bryston is targeting an audience for this product that isn't interested in these details.

Seriously, most, if not all (myself included), couldn't tell  the difference between a 24/48 and a 24/88.2, 24/96, 24/176.4 or 24/192 music file. A lot of factors have to be just right before this is actually significant. In reality, it's comes down to a marketing number. This unit has a higher sample rate than this other unit, so it must be better? Bryston seems to have decided the majority that would want this unit couldn't care, since it's not first and foremost a music processor. It's for theater and 48K sample rate is fine.

The web site tells us, this product is targeted at "high quality home theaters built for home cinema enthusiasts" and not for its music prowess.

Personally, I think Bryston made somewhat of a mistake in their naming of this unit. When you sell a unit called SP3 and then you release an SP4 model, this screams "upgrade path". Anyone with an SP3 decides their unit must be obsolete and it's time to look at the SP4. That just isn't the case if you look at the specifications. They're a different product.

Why did they not name the SP4 something like SP-HT?

brucek

[James Tanner]

Hi Folks,

Yes the SP4 is directed towards quality home theater and we will eventually offer upgrades to the DAC and analog sections etc. going forward as the guts are all modular in design and can be swapped and updated as we go.

Fortunately the SP4 is selling beyond our ability to make them so from the sales side it has been a big success recognizing as some have suggested that these customers are prioritizing the features and performance available for state of the art movie playback which is all recorded at 48K.

james

[witchdoctor]

That's great James, I wish more owners would post reviews in this thread.

[gbaby]

Hi Folks,

Fortunately the SP4 is selling beyond our ability to make them so from the sales side it has been a big success recognizing as some have suggested that these customers are prioritizing the features and performance available for state of the art movie playback which is all recorded at 48K.

james

Will the SP4 play 44.1/16 PCM at that sampling rate or will it up convert it to 48k?

[James Tanner]

It plays it a 44.1

james

[witchdoctor]

Re: dacs and processors I think it is a non issue from my perspective. I buy a processor for the music/movie features I want to make a room sound/look great. Those features are immersive sound and room correction. Let's face it, codecs and dacs are upgraded in the industry every 3 years (or sooner). If I want to upgrade every 3 years I wouldn't buy a processor, I would buy a receiver. When I get the "upgrade" itch for the room my processor is in for a dac/streamer I would go external and connect via RCA. It is a HELL of a lot easier swapping out external DAC's than processors. My processor streams Spotify NP. I did notice a boost in SQ when I added a Bluesound Node. After 2 years I swapped the Node for a Klipsch Gate for another boost (the $30 Gate sounds better to my ears than a $500 Node but that's another story). I have my eye on a Mcintosh MB 50 and maybe that will be next.
So, my advice is if you are looking for a SOA processor just grab ab SP4 and ask the dealer for some flexibility if you add an outboard DAC on a possible future purchase.

BTW, it is the same rule of thumb for video. If I want 8K or whatever in the future I would buy a player with two HDMI outs so I can connect audio to the processor and video straight to the display.

[gbaby]

It plays it a 44.1

james

Well as far as I'm concerned, there should be no problem using the SP4 for music as 99.9% of digital music is encoded at PCM 44.1/16.

[Rod_S]

Re: dacs and processors I think it is a non issue from my perspective. I buy a processor for the music/movie features I want to make a room sound/look great. Those features are immersive sound and room correction. Let's face it, codecs and dacs are upgraded in the industry every 3 years (or sooner). If I want to upgrade every 3 years I wouldn't buy a processor, I would buy a receiver. When I get the "upgrade" itch for the room my processor is in for a dac/streamer I would go external and connect via RCA. It is a HELL of a lot easier swapping out external DAC's than processors. My processor streams Spotify NP. I did notice a boost in SQ when I added a Bluesound Node. After 2 years I swapped the Node for a Klipsch Gate for another boost (the $30 Gate sounds better to my ears than a $500 Node but that's another story). I have my eye on a Mcintosh MB 50 and maybe that will be next.
So, my advice is if you are looking for a SOA processor just grab ab SP4 and ask the dealer for some flexibility if you add an outboard DAC on a possible future purchase.

BTW, it is the same rule of thumb for video. If I want 8K or whatever in the future I would buy a player with two HDMI outs so I can connect audio to the processor and video straight to the display.

It's not the DAC's that are downgrading the resolution, it's the internal processing and a user can not compensate for that by connecting external hardware either before or after and still expect Dirac, matrix processing, etc. to run native at higher than 24/48, it will always run at 24/48 max. The only way of updating that is possibly via firmware however I suspect its an internal hardware limitation so in order for Storm and Bryston to upgrade in the future to get at least 96/24 for all channels is to send the unit back for a board replacement.

[dminches]

Well as far as I'm concerned, there should be no problem using the SP4 for music as 99.9% of digital music is encoded at PCM 44.1/16.

Your 99.9% infers "just about everything" and that is not true.

People who can spend over $10k on a processor are likely buying new versions of digital music at high resolutions and that is not at 44.1/16.

[gbaby]

Your 99.9% infers "just about everything" and that is not true.

People who can spend over $10k on a processor are likely buying new versions of digital music at high resolutions and that is not at 44.1/16.

Well then you give a percentage. The point is, most CDs and recordings are PCM 44.1/16. And, James Tanner has been telling us the quality of sound depends on the original recording not a codec, and he was raked over the coals for his position. 

[gbaby]

People who can spend over $10k on a processor are likely buying new versions of digital music at high resolutions and that is not at 44.1/16.

I own a 10k processor, the Bryston SP3, and I own a 3.5k D/A converter, the BDA-3 that does DSD and all that, but 99.9% of the time, I listen to and prefer plain old PCM 44.1/16. I own too many hi res disc and downloads to continue to be enamored with codecs. I've learned my lesson. Thank you James Tanner. 

[witchdoctor]

It's not the DAC's that are downgrading the resolution, it's the internal processing and a user can not compensate for that by connecting external hardware either before or after and still expect Dirac, matrix processing, etc. to run native at higher than 24/48, it will always run at 24/48 max. The only way of updating that is possibly via firmware however I suspect its an internal hardware limitation so in order for Storm and Bryston to upgrade in the future to get at least 96/24 for all channels is to send the unit back for a board replacement.

Hmmm, I guess the devil is in the details, thanks Rod_S

[Rod_S]

No worries, I just want to make sure people know the distinction as I see most people assume it's the DAC's as that's what marketing always touts when throwing resolution numbers at consumers but those run up to at least 24/192 and frankly most DAC's nowadays do this anyways, even cheap DAC's.

What is seldom talked about as companies tend to be less forthcoming is internal processing which is a very important figure because really that's what everything coming into the unit is going to be subject to unless the unit sports a bypass. I just feel corners were cut because a $10k+ SSP should not be using hardware that limits to 24/48 and people can make all of the excuses they want about it being a SSP designed for movies and movies are predominately 24/48, fair enough but the price of a 24/48 unit should be reflected accordingly at below $10k, particularly what I assume is it's most common configuration at 16 channels.  It still remains to be seen at what internal resolution Emotiva's new SSP is running at because that unit is what, $5k US?? and implements Dirac just like the Storm/Bryston. It's not as expandable as the Storm/Bryston (i.e. channel count) because it's capped at 16 channels I believe like the Datasat LS10, Theta Casablanca IVa and Trinnov Altitude16 but those latter 3 all run internally at 24/96 and are $10k+ units.

Again this is simply all my opinion and frankly my only gripe with the unit because all else considered Storm and Bryston should be commended for being able to bring a SSP capable of 32 channels (I think when fully upgraded) and doing so using DSP's and not PC hardware.

[James Tanner]

MEMO: To All Bryston Customers
SUBJECT: Bryston Home Theater in the Hamptons

 July, 2019

Hi James,

New York in the Hamptons beachfront mansion!

The house is 33,000 sq. feet on 20 acres, overlooking the Atlantic Ocean.

 Theatre is 25 x 19 x 10 feet with three rows of seating.

•   Bryston SP-4 Processor for the main theatre.

•   Bryston SP-3 Processor for second 6.1 theatre.

•   Commercial grade video wall.

•   Six Bryston 2.5B Cubed amplifiers, plus two Bryston 3B Cubed Amplifiers.

The speakers never, ever sounded so good!

Wayne

[dminches]

Well then you give a percentage. The point is, most CDs and recordings are PCM 44.1/16. And, James Tanner has been telling us the quality of sound depends on the original recording not a codec, and he was raked over the coals for his position. 

Most recordings are analog, not digital.  When CDs first appeared they were transferred at 48/16 or 44.1/16.  With the advances of technology the majority of new transfers are being done at higher resolutions.  HDtracks as well as many other companies are making a lot of money off of hires audio.

New digital recordings are being done at 24/192 or DSD, not 16/44.1.

[witchdoctor]

Most recordings are analog, not digital.  When CDs first appeared they were transferred at 48/16 or 44.1/16.  With the advances of technology the majority of new transfers are being done at higher resolutions.  HDtracks as well as many other companies are making a lot of money off of hires audio.

New digital recordings are being done at 24/192 or DSD, not 16/44.1.

A LOT of money? I think they are in a life or death battle with Spotify aren't they?

[witchdoctor]

MEMO: To All Bryston Customers
SUBJECT: Bryston Home Theater in the Hamptons

 July, 2019

Hi James,

New York in the Hamptons beachfront mansion!

The house is 33,000 sq. feet on 20 acres, overlooking the Atlantic Ocean.

 Theatre is 25 x 19 x 10 feet with three rows of seating.

•   Bryston SP-4 Processor for the main theatre.

•   Bryston SP-3 Processor for second 6.1 theatre.

•   Commercial grade video wall.

•   Six Bryston 2.5B Cubed amplifiers, plus two Bryston 3B Cubed Amplifiers.

The speakers never, ever sounded so good!

Wayne

Hmmmm, I need to get one of these for my mansion 

[dminches]

A LOT of money? I think they are in a life or death battle with Spotify aren't they?

Different markets.  My guess is that people buying hi res downloads are not going to depend on low res streaming services like Spotify.  If anything they would consider Qobuz or Tidal.

However, streaming and buying are 2 different things.

[gbaby]

Most recordings are analog, not digital.

Elementary dear Watson.  The only reason I made the inquiry on whether or not the SP4 played 44.1/16 natively is for me to make a determination if it was suitable for red book CD playback, and it is. I own a bunch of hi res downloads and SACDs from both HDTracks and Acoustic Sounds. None sound better than a well mastered PCM 44.1/16 disc or file. This is just my personal observation. To me, hi res sounds different, maybe even louder than rebook, however, not necessarily better. But, there is an inaccuracy in the sound that I just can't define.

[Rod_S]

Yeah differences in the levels of recording is very dangerous when doing comparisons because we tend to think we like the louder one but that does not mean it's the better recording/mixing/mastering. A lot of the poorly done high res material is louder (it's an alarming trend today even at CD resolution) which people think is better but if you start to factor that out and do as best as possible to level match the differences are much harder to detect but there.

A very well recorded and mixed album, when done right and released at different resolutions, the higher resolution tends to have more depth, or air in the recording giving an overall larger presentation. I find the highs more natural but these are things that don't immediately stand out and in most cases if not done under critical listening conditions you would never know otherwise which is why it's understandable that the whole high res thing just isn't worth it to a lot of people because it's not an immediate oh wow like say a hardware upgrade such as a new pair of speakers, etc. can be not to mention the incredible inconsistency with high res releases.