AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Bryston Limited => Topic started by: techguy0192 on 3 Mar 2017, 08:17 pm
-
Just wanted to get some thoughts and opinions. Now that the BDA-3 is available, does the USB support on the older BDA-1 feel dated? For those of you still enjoying the BDA-1, are you feeling the need to upgrade, or are you still happy with the performance?
-
Used to own a BDA-1 yes dated. Had a BCD-1 before the BDA-1 and had an old Micro Mega DUO PRO DAC, when I got the BCD-1, which I sold at that point. That was dated too.
-
Just wanted to get some thoughts and opinions. For those of you still enjoying the BDA-1, are you feeling the need to upgrade, or are you still happy with the performance?
Very happy with my BDA-1. No urge to "upgrade" whatsoever.
This may be enlightening -- one man's perspective. YMMV, etc etc
http://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/reader-feedback/1027-new-bryston-dac-vs-old
-
I am also using BDA-1 for long time and do not feel any need to upgrade.
I do not use USB input though, only BNC and AES
-
I also am happy with the combination of the BDP-1 and BDA-1. I've had both for several years and I'm listening to music right now and continue to be amazed at the quality of the sound! I think this combination is great. That's not to say the new gear isn't; I'm just extremely happy with what I've got. Your ears will tell you what's best for you.
Terry
-
Hi!
If you're happy with audio quality of your BDA-1, there is really very little reason to upgrade to a BDA-2 or BDA-3.
I can only accept the "dated" attribute if we are talking about compatibility as BDA-1 will not accept anything higher than 48 kHz through it's USB input. But if we are talking about audio quality, then it is as good of a DAC as anything I have heard. You can always use a USB-to-S/PDIF converter if you so desire and get higher sampling rates from your computer.
I own a BDA-2 but BDA-1 is just as good.
Quite frankly, anything above 24 bit / 96 kHz is ridiculous and there can be no obvious gain since analogue components like amplifiers are far surpassed by their digital counterparts when it comes to signal-to-noise ratio. There are many, many studies and articles including the ones published in respectable audio journals where it is stated multiple times there can be no audible benefit to recordings with sampling rates higher than 96 kHz.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
Antun
-
The USB on the BDA 3 sounds much, much better than the USB on the BDA 1. I own both units and purchased the BDA 3 because of the improved USB. I use it to listen to Spotify though a laptop. If Bryston offered Spotify on its BDP, I would consider buying one. Instead, I plan to buy a BCD 3. I'm expecting it will sound better than my BCD 1. My next little project is to hook up a bluray player to the BDA3 to see what a CD sounds like and to watch bluray music concerts.
-
^ deleted
-
The USB on the BDA 3 sounds much, much better than the USB on the BDA 1. I own both units and purchased the BDA 3 because of the improved USB. I use it to listen to Spotify though a laptop. If Bryston offered Spotify on its BDP, I would consider buying one. Instead, I plan to buy a BCD 3. I'm expecting it will sound better than my BCD 1. My next little project is to hook up a bluray player to the BDA3 to see what a CD sounds like and to watch bluray music concerts.
^ Expensive purchase (BDA-3) just for improved USB, isn't it? You could have gotten a BDA-2.
Your BCD-1 feeding a BDA-3 as transport should be outstanding -- no need to get a BCD-3, imo
-
It really boils down to what features one wants. If one primarily plays discs, they may not care about the USB input. When I owned my BDA-1, I was not as yet into computer audio. I have hundreds of SACDs. I used an HDMI audio de-embedder out of my Oppo 83 and played them back at 24/88.2 into the BDA-1 coax input and preferred that overall vs. the analog out of my modded Oppo. Most of the time I preferred the upsampling on SACDs (to 24/176.4).
When I made the decision to get into computer audio (never thought I would), the USB input of the BDA-1 was a limiting factor. The BDA-2 of course (or the 3) does not have that limitation. The BDA-3 offers HDMI inputs and DSD. So it boils down to features not the fact that any of them are bad sounding.
-
^ Expensive purchase (BDA-3) just for improved USB, isn't it?
especially considering spotify is well served with the BDA-1 https://support.spotify.com/us/using_spotify/search_play/what-bitrate-does-spotify-use-for-streaming/ (https://support.spotify.com/us/using_spotify/search_play/what-bitrate-does-spotify-use-for-streaming/) :scratch:
-
^ Expensive purchase (BDA-3) just for improved USB, isn't it? You could have gotten a BDA-2.
Your BCD-1 feeding a BDA-3 as transport should be outstanding -- no need to get a BCD-3, imo
The HDMI connections made it worth the extra money to me over the BDA-2. It's kind of like when you buy a new car and splurge for the deluxe model. The BCD does sound outstanding through the BDA 3, but I have plans to move it to another system. And I really am impressed with the BCD3 based on what I've read.
-
especially considering spotify is well served with the BDA-1 https://support.spotify.com/us/using_spotify/search_play/what-bitrate-does-spotify-use-for-streaming/ (https://support.spotify.com/us/using_spotify/search_play/what-bitrate-does-spotify-use-for-streaming/) :scratch:
Hands down, Spotify premium sounds better on the BCD3 than the BCD1. I compared both carefully. A CD definitely sounds better, but my family tells me they have a hard time telling the difference in blind tests. And I'm saving literally hundreds of dollars each year on music purchases. I love getting my weekly playlist every Monday from Spotify. There's also a new feature that when the music you've chosen finishes playing, Spotify automatically continues playing similar music. All for less than the price of one CD each month.
-
The problem I have with Tidal/Spotify is that I don't really own anything -- unless I can download to my HD. Still prefer CDs with their booklets, discs, cases etc. Especially box sets. With the cost of classical discs way down (resellers on Amazon.ca etc), Tidal and Spotify are like renting an apartment. imho.
Anyways, do whatever turns your keys. I agree with the luxury car analogy -- options galore, feast for the buyer who has the coin. :thumb:
-
The problem I have with Tidal/Spotify is that I don't really own anything -- unless I can download to my HD. Still prefer CDs with their booklets, discs, cases etc. Especially box sets. With the cost of classical discs way down (resellers on Amazon.ca etc), Tidal and Spotify are like renting an apartment. imho.
Anyways, do whatever turns your keys. I agree with the luxury car analogy -- options galore, feast for the buyer who has the coin. :thumb:
I still buy CDs and box sets, but at a much, much lower rate. Still, I own hundreds of CDs that I've only listened to once. This is where streaming saves you the money. Which somehow I easily manage to spend on Bryston gear. :D
-
Hands down, Spotify premium sounds better on the BCD3 than the BCD1. I compared both carefully. A CD definitely sounds better, but my family tells me they have a hard time telling the difference in blind tests. And I'm saving literally hundreds of dollars each year on music purchases. I love getting my weekly playlist every Monday from Spotify. There's also a new feature that when the music you've chosen finishes playing, Spotify automatically continues playing similar music. All for less than the price of one CD each month.
You must refer to the BDA-3/BDA-1 ?
Still, apparently Spotify streams in mp3 resolution...
You might well be right, and if that's the case, surely not only Spotify would benefit. Ive had the BDA2 next to my BDA1 for several weeks, and had a hard time hearing any real difference i could positively repeat and quantify.. Maybe the BDA-3 is a real game changer. Id certainly hope it is, cause that would give me another reason to lust for it, next to the HDMI, and forget the loss of connections I also 'need'...
Cheers,
Marius
-
Still, apparently Spotify streams in mp3 resolution...
You might well be right, and if that's the case, surely not only Spotify would benefit. Ive had the BDA2 next to my BDA1 for several weeks, and had a hard time hearing any real difference i could positively repeat and quantify.. Maybe the BDA-3 is a real game changer. Id certainly hope it is, cause that would give me another reason to lust for it, next to the HDMI, and forget the loss of connections I also 'need'...
Cheers,
Marius
Ouch on the MP3. makes CDs all the more appealing...to me.
Your observation re. BDA-2 vs. BDA-1 similarity, replicates what others have attested.
-
You must refer to the BDA-3/BDA-1 ?
Still, apparently Spotify streams in mp3 resolution...
You might well be right, and if that's the case, surely not only Spotify would benefit. Ive had the BDA2 next to my BDA1 for several weeks, and had a hard time hearing any real difference i could positively repeat and quantify.. Maybe the BDA-3 is a real game changer. Id certainly hope it is, cause that would give me another reason to lust for it, next to the HDMI, and forget the loss of connections I also 'need'...
Cheers,
Marius
Yes that was a typo. I was referring to BDA 3 and BDA 1. Spotify premium streams at 320 kbps.
-
Spotify premium streams at 320 kbps.
Exactly my point. Which the BDA-1 serves more than adequately. Mp3 file resolution at the most.
have a look at https://www.crutchfield.com/S-oowdiEgfYJX/learn/high-resolution-audio-guide.html or other resources
BDA-1 USB has no issues up to regular CD resolution.
You might have reasons for the BDA-3, but you're wasting your money if it's dedicated for Spotify streaming mp3's ...
Cheers,
Marius
-
^ Interesting article. Given the recent debunking of MQA's alleged "lossless" quality, it may be prudent to be cautious. Also, some "hi-res" files may be 44/16 (or worse) that has been manipulated ("upsampled").
Others of potential interest: (YMMV as usual)
https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
On my system (BDP-1/BDA-1), it's hard for me to reliably distinguish 44/16 CD rips from some MP3 320.
I agree, the BDA-1's USB does files up to 48/16 quite well.
cheers
-
Hi Pete,
You might be interested in Hans Beekhuyzen's channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg
Maybe off topic here, but you started the move to MQA ...
Hans also has a video on need for 192Khz which could be of interest contemplating.
Cheers,
Marius
^ Interesting article. Given the recent debunking of MQA's alleged "lossless" quality, it may be prudent to be cautious. Also, some "hi-res" files may be 44/16 (or worse) that has been manipulated ("upsampled").
Others of potential interest: (YMMV as usual)
https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/ (https://warmleftovers.com/2012/08/05/no-flac-does-not-sound-better-and-you-are-not-an-audiophile-because-you-use-it-heres-what-it-actually-is-and-why-its-important/)
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)
On my system (BDP-1/BDA-1), it's hard for me to reliably distinguish 44/16 CD rips from some MP3 320.
I agree, the BDA-1's USB does files up to 48/16 quite well.
cheers
-
Hi Pete,
You might be interested in Hans Beekhuyzen's channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_wxRGiBoJg
Hans also has a video on need for 192Khz which could be of interest contemplating.
Cheers,
Marius
Thank you, Marius. Good tutorial there.
I think there are enough audio formats flying around. Life's complicated enough. Flac/Wav for me.
A good day for me if if I can open an attachment. :lol:
cheers
Pete
Excerpt from a memo by Benchmark re. 192/24:
Created: 21 October 2010
To S. Andrea Sunduram,
All of Benchmark’s A/D converters and D/A converters support sample rates up to 192kHz. However, we strongly recommend 96kHz for optimum performance. There is a performance penalty for operating at 192kHz. The problem is that all A/D and D/A converter chips operate at reduced oversampling ratios when converting at 192kHz. At the current time, the negative consequences of the reduced oversampling ratio far outweigh any benefits derived from the higher sample rates.
At 192kHz the stopband attenuation of the digital filters is usually much poorer than at 96kHz. Many converter ICs have 120dB of stopband attenuation at 96kHz, but only 80dB at 192kHz. This makes 192kHz converters very susceptible to aliasing and poor image rejection. These artifacts clutter the audible spectrum with low-level non-musical distortion.
It can be shown and demonstrated that there is no loss of time-domain accuracy when operating at 96kHz versus 192kHz. It is a myth that 192kHz gives better time-domain accuracy.
To date, Benchmark has no evidence that 192kHz performs better than 96kHz, but we have a substantial body of evidence that shows that 192kHz has defects that are not present at 96kHz. These issues are also shared openly by one of our competitors: Lavry Engineering. We suspect many other manufacturers are aware of these issues, but choose not to talk about them.
Bottom line: Be very careful about any claims that 192kHz sounds better than 96kHz. Our experience points in the opposite direction.
John Siau
V.P., Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.
-
Hi Pete,
Should we take this out of this topic?
I will post this to Hans, I've read it before, and must admit, since I've started downloading the 24/96 files instead of the 24/192 files of one of my favorite suppliers/lables I've enjoyed these recordings better :scratch:
Discussed about the with the lable manager and they insist in 192 being the better files. Well anyways, lets see what Hans has got to say.
Or the Bryston team here for that matter. James/Chris, please chime in, and if it pleases the board better, move it to another topic.
Cheers,
Marius
Thank you, Marius. Good tutorial there.
I think there are enough audio formats flying around. Life's complicated enough. Flac/Wav for me.
A good day for me if if I can open an attachment. :lol:
cheers
Pete
Excerpt from a memo by Benchmark re. 192/24:
Created: 21 October 2010
To S. Andrea Sunduram,
All of Benchmark’s A/D converters and D/A converters support sample rates up to 192kHz. However, we strongly recommend 96kHz for optimum performance. There is a performance penalty for operating at 192kHz. The problem is that all A/D and D/A converter chips operate at reduced oversampling ratios when converting at 192kHz. At the current time, the negative consequences of the reduced oversampling ratio far outweigh any benefits derived from the higher sample rates.
At 192kHz the stopband attenuation of the digital filters is usually much poorer than at 96kHz. Many converter ICs have 120dB of stopband attenuation at 96kHz, but only 80dB at 192kHz. This makes 192kHz converters very susceptible to aliasing and poor image rejection. These artifacts clutter the audible spectrum with low-level non-musical distortion.
It can be shown and demonstrated that there is no loss of time-domain accuracy when operating at 96kHz versus 192kHz. It is a myth that 192kHz gives better time-domain accuracy.
To date, Benchmark has no evidence that 192kHz performs better than 96kHz, but we have a substantial body of evidence that shows that 192kHz has defects that are not present at 96kHz. These issues are also shared openly by one of our competitors: Lavry Engineering. We suspect many other manufacturers are aware of these issues, but choose not to talk about them.
Bottom line: Be very careful about any claims that 192kHz sounds better than 96kHz. Our experience points in the opposite direction.
John Siau
V.P., Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.
-
^ Marius, I will take a more middle, diplomatic ground: Much depends on the quality of studio mastering -- sometimes 192 may sound quite good. My experiences with about < 20 albums at 192, tell me otherwise. For example, Abbado/BPO Beethoven's 9th, at 192 sounded horrid to me -- compared to my CD of the same recording. Don't know why exactly, but I rarely get poor quality with 96/24 or 88/24 masters. The bit depth means more to me than the sampling rate -- 24 bits even at 44 or 48, sound darn good vs. 44/16 or 192/24.
By all means, show it to Hans.
Let's not hijack this thread any longer....
cheers,