[R. Daneel]

Hi Yes

And it supports my conclusion that the file format does not determine a quality recording.

james

Hi James!

So it sounds the same in your opinion? Or the difference is so small that it is a matter of taste or personal preference?

Cheers!
Antun

[James Tanner]

Hi James!

So it sounds the same in your opinion? Or the difference is so small that it is a matter of taste or personal preference?

Cheers!
Antun

i just do not find that because it is DSD or PCM it necessarily guarantees a quality sound.  Its just a different delivery system for digital files.

james

[Phil A]

There's a ton of skill in the mastering and mixing of an album.  I have many DSD files.  Just because it is DSD does not make it good.  The same can be said of hi-rez PCM.  Don't get me wrong, I buy as much hi-rez as I can and only get CD quality of things I like where there is no other alternative (I have about 36,000 songs on the music server).  They can't make a miracle from a poorly recorded album just by format.

[R. Daneel]

i just do not find that because it is DSD or PCM it necessarily guarantees a quality sound.  Its just a different delivery system for digital files.

james

Hi James!

That's a good answer!

It is interesting what you can read and wby DSD is superior to PCM. Some even go as far as to say the designers of the first CD machines made a mistake when they chose PCM which is not really true. While DSD is almost as old as PCM, DSD system requires a lot more physical space on an optical disc than CD, which at the time, was meant as a 14-bit format. It wasn't until Sony joined Philips that they suggested a 16-bit system with a 74-minute runtime which enlarged the diameter of the disc from 100mm to 120mm. So, the designers didn't really do any mistakes back then, they did the best they could.

What is somewhat bothersome is the nature of how DSD was introduced to the world. Sony is now advertising DSD like the next best thing and yet, it was them who prevented the format from succeeding in the first place. It was a disc that could have been played only on a dedicated SACD machine and apart from the analogue recording, you could not copy the content of the disc.

Like a friend likes to say - Antun, if your system sounds fantastic now, surely it will sound fantastic in 10 or 20 years. If you buy a new Audi now, it will be an Audi in 10 years and still far better than any modern Chevrolet no matter how many stickers they put on it.

But let me ask you, in terms of the processing demands, what is more difficult for BDP tp play back - PCM (24/192) or DSD?

Cheers!
Antun

[James Tanner]

Hi James!

That's a good answer!

It is interesting what you can read and wby DSD is superior to PCM. Some even go as far as to say the designers of the first CD machines made a mistake when they chose PCM which is not really true. While DSD is almost as old as PCM, DSD system requires a lot more physical space on an optical disc than CD, which at the time, was meant as a 14-bit format. It wasn't until Sony joined Philips that they suggested a 16-bit system with a 74-minute runtime which enlarged the diameter of the disc from 100mm to 120mm. So, the designers didn't really do any mistakes back then, they did the best they could.

What is somewhat bothersome is the nature of how DSD was introduced to the world. Sony is now advertising DSD like the next best thing and yet, it was them who prevented the format from succeeding in the first place. It was a disc that could have been played only on a dedicated SACD machine and apart from the analogue recording, you could not copy the content of the disc.

Like a friend likes to say - Antun, if your system sounds fantastic now, surely it will sound fantastic in 10 or 20 years. If you buy a new Audi now, it will be an Audi in 10 years and still far better than any modern Chevrolet no matter how many stickers they put on it.

But let me ask you, in terms of the processing demands, what is more difficult for BDP tp play back - PCM (24/192) or DSD?

Cheers!
Antun

HI Antun

I will let Chris answer more fully but as I understand it the BDP circuit board is a very powerful computer so playing high resolution files either DSD or PCM is a simple task.  Also the operating system (Linux) is dedicated to this task alone.

james

[R. Daneel]

HI Antun

I will let Chris answer more fully but as I understand it the BDP circuit board is a very powerful computer so playing high resolution files either DSD or PCM is a simple task.  Also the operating system (Linux) is dedicated to this task alone.

james

Hi James!

Thank you! I'd be grateful if Chris could answer this one but please remember, we are talking about a BDP-1, not the BDP-2 which is more powerful.

Cheers!
Antun

[Grit]

Hi James!

Thank you! I'd be grateful if Chris could answer this one but please remember, we are talking about a BDP-1, not the BDP-2 which is more powerful.

Cheers!
Antun

True, but that shouldn't change how many processor cycles it takes to decode PCM or DSD.

[Phil A]

The reviewer here - http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/bryston-bda-2-digital-to-analog-converter/  has a BDP-1.

[werd]

Who's getting the first BDA3?

[Phil A]

Who's getting the first BDA3?

Might be the reviewer who reviewed the BDA-2.  I know him and exchanged emails last week.  He just sold his BDA-2 and I'm sure he's got a BDA-3 either on order already or will have one shortly.  Looking forward to his evaluations.

[scirica]

Might be the reviewer who reviewed the BDA-2.  I know him and exchanged emails last week.  He just sold his BDA-2 and I'm sure he's got a BDA-3 either on order already or will have one shortly.  Looking forward to his evaluations.

Well I know I'm in the top 20.  Waiting patiently for James "the Perfectionist" Tanner to give it a green light for production!

[a1p1]

James,
Can you provide additional info about the HDMI inputs on the the BDA-3?  Will it accept i2s/LVDS via the HDMI input?  Thoughts on this vs. USB?
Best,
AP

[Phil A]

Well I know I'm in the top 20.  Waiting patiently for James "the Perfectionist" Tanner to give it a green light for production!

It's always better to wait a bit longer and get it right.  Many years back I had an expensive DVD transport, and while they got it right just before the end of the product's life cycle (and the end of the company probably due in part to the problems of it not working properly), it was not a pleasant experience.

[James Tanner]

James,
Can you provide additional info about the HDMI inputs on the the BDA-3?  Will it accept i2s/LVDS via the HDMI input?  Thoughts on this vs. USB?
Best,
AP

Hi AP

Not sure I understand?  The HDMI board will OUTPUT i2s. 

james

[a1p1]

Hi AP

Not sure I understand?  The HDMI board will OUTPUT i2s. 

james

James,
My understanding is that LVDS is a means to sending the i2s signal from a transport to a DAC via a HDMI cable? Such as what PS Audio and the Sonore Signature Series Rendu are doing.  In what way are the HDMI inputs on the DAC-3 to be used?

[lycia]

Hi Folks

Yes we used it at the recent Montreal audio show and it worked great for 4 days running.  Just working on the DSD side currently and I am hoping we will be in production in about 60 days.

james

Any further news on the release of the BDA-3?

[James Tanner]

Any further news on the release of the BDA-3?

Hi

Still be worked on - DSD

james

[lycia]

Hi

Still be worked on - DSD

james

Thank you, James.

[Rod_S]

What outputs are you all using on your BDA's, balanced or unbalanced and do you find any quality difference between the two?

[R. Daneel]

What outputs are you all using on your BDA's, balanced or unbalanced and do you find any quality difference between the two?

Hi Rod!

I use balanced cables. The improvement was audible in dynamic range. However, I would not say this is due to the cables, but rather due to the fact the amplifier might be better suite to the higher voltage of balanced connection.

Cheers!
Antun