[bokko]

Recently connected my BDA-3 to my Allo DigiOne sig, its running as a Roon endpoint using Ropieee.
Have tried sending DOP via coaxial and BNC spdif (one at time) and just get hiss. Switch to PCM sounds awesome.
Does the BDA-3 do DOP over SPDIF inputs? As mentioned listening to DSD as native on USB works fine.

I have read the 3.14 has ability to turn DOP off and on via USB or SPDIF could upgrading to 2020 firmware have affected this? How can I fix it?

Thanks for your time

Stay safe

[bokko]

It does not support, not really an issue as it does support Native playback of DSD via USB the preferred method of playback.

Being a nerd I like to compare and prove things to myself.

So much for the upgraded computer power supply when a Pi based device that costs the same as power supply sounds better as a transport (Allo Digione sig powered with R-Core based ChiFi Linear Power Supply).
Might have to bite my tongue and try a BDP-3 at some point or be patient and wait for BR-20

[GSDaudio]

I'm not into DSD so I can't help you with your question.    However, I have experimented with Pi's and their audio "hats".   Built a dac based Pi and a digital player Pi.   Fun to play and learn....listen to music .... not so much.   I almost purchased the sigma11 power supply (DIY Linear power supply) but couldn't really understand how to reduce 5v to 3.3v required on the audio hat.    Then I thought I am out of my league and don't want to end up down the rabbit hole.   Of course that is just me.

Cheers

[bokko]

Me either I bought a preassembled one from Ali Express a store called GZBOTOLAVE these guys post a picture with the LPS on a Test bench what you are getting.
It's not Bryston but I can really hear the difference when in use. I have compared it to Allo Shanti, iFi iPower 5v, Allo SMPS and really opens up sound stage and clarity of highs and more authority in the lows.
It contains 3 R-Core Linear power supplies. I went for 2x5v 3a for my Pi projects and a 15v 1a for my iPhono2 preamp.

As I run Roon don't really need more from a network transport this Pi combo $450, LPS $350 (when I bought it) is what my budget can afford.
Would love to hear a BDP-3 at some point. Think the long term plan is saving up for a BR-20.

Enjoy the music


 

[R. Daneel]

BDP-3 is a nice machine like it's predecessors. I own a BDP-2 with factory-installed BUC board. While it does sound excellent, particularly through it's AES/EBU output into the BDA-2 DAC, I must admit I could really not hear any difference between it and the previous BDP-1 with the ESI Juli@ board. So I doubt BDP-3 sounds any different.

On a side note, I also compared it to the Naim ND5 XS and to my surprise, the difference was more audible than I expected. For some reason, the Naim sounded less fluid and somewhat grainy. Higher registers weren't as open either.

While I didn't quite figure out why that was, one good thing did come from it - I learned that BDA-2 is good enough of a DAC to distinguish between different digital transports.

Sorry if this is borderline off-topic but digital transports are always an interesting topic to me.

Cheers,
Antun

[GSDaudio]

BDP-3 is a nice machine like it's predecessors. I own a BDP-2 with factory-installed BUC board. While it does sound excellent, particularly through it's AES/EBU output into the BDA-2 DAC, I must admit I could really not hear any difference between it and the previous BDP-1 with the ESI Juli@ board. So I doubt BDP-3 sounds any different.

On a side note, I also compared it to the Naim ND5 XS and to my surprise, the difference was more audible than I expected. For some reason, the Naim sounded less fluid and somewhat grainy. Higher registers weren't as open either.

While I didn't quite figure out why that was, one good thing did come from it - I learned that BDA-2 is good enough of a DAC to distinguish between different digital transports.

Sorry if this is borderline off-topic but digital transports are always an interesting topic to me.

Cheers,
Antun

Antun,  did you play your BDP-1 through your BDA-2 with respect to your comparison of the BDP-2(BUC upgrade) and BDP-1?   I'm beginning to suspect that the newer BDAs are much more robust in "cleaning" a digital stream than the older DACs in the BP preamps.   My experience moving from a BDP-1 to a BDP-3 had a significant improvement in SQ but my internal dac may not be as good "cleaning" the signal.   I too apologize for off-topic discussion...

Cheers,
Richard

[R. Daneel]

Antun,  did you play your BDP-1 through your BDA-2 with respect to your comparison of the BDP-2(BUC upgrade) and BDP-1?   I'm beginning to suspect that the newer BDAs are much more robust in "cleaning" a digital stream than the older DACs in the BP preamps.   My experience moving from a BDP-1 to a BDP-3 had a significant improvement in SQ but my internal dac may not be as good "cleaning" the signal.   I too apologize for off-topic discussion...

Cheers,
Richard

Hi Richard!

Absolutely, both BDP-1 and -2 played side by side using exact same files and cables. I wouldn't have done the upgrade to a BDP-2 if I wasn't experiencing problems with the BDP-1. It seemed insufficiently powerful to run smoothly when playing hi-res files.

I intend to to an article on this but the ESI Juli@ has likely the cleanest S/PDIF output of all the soundcards available at one time or another. Based on the VIA Envy 24 chipset developed by IC Ensemble, it certainly wouldn't be a bottleneck. Juli@ isn't the only card to use it but the implementation in that one is simply beautiful.

In my opinion, Bryston's idea behind the BUC board was to make production more efficient, with less outsourced manufacture which is always an expensive exhibition for boutique manufacturers. Besides, the BUC board is based on the USB input circuit within the BDA-2 DAC so the design was already there.

I must be frank and say everything that came after the BDP-1 has been overpriced. Five-thousand € for a BDP-3... BDP-1 was 2000 €. The fact the later versions are faster doesn't really justify it because computers advance quickly and the prices remain the same. In fact, it has never been cheaper to get into computing.

Yes, definitely off-topic!!

Cheers,
Antun

[unincognito]

Hi Richard!

Absolutely, both BDP-1 and -2 played side by side using exact same files and cables. I wouldn't have done the upgrade to a BDP-2 if I wasn't experiencing problems with the BDP-1. It seemed insufficiently powerful to run smoothly when playing hi-res files.

I intend to to an article on this but the ESI Juli@ has likely the cleanest S/PDIF output of all the soundcards available at one time or another. Based on the VIA Envy 24 chipset developed by IC Ensemble, it certainly wouldn't be a bottleneck. Juli@ isn't the only card to use it but the implementation in that one is simply beautiful.

In my opinion, Bryston's idea behind the BUC board was to make production more efficient, with less outsourced manufacture which is always an expensive exhibition for boutique manufacturers. Besides, the BUC board is based on the USB input circuit within the BDA-2 DAC so the design was already there.

I must be frank and say everything that came after the BDP-1 has been overpriced. Five-thousand € for a BDP-3... BDP-1 was 2000 €. The fact the later versions are faster doesn't really justify it because computers advance quickly and the prices remain the same. In fact, it has never been cheaper to get into computing.

Yes, definitely off-topic!!

Cheers,
Antun

Hi Antun and anyone else who may come across this,

and maybe get some  for this story

You are right, computing is getting cheaper, but at the same time that's not possible to make a blanket comparison between the BDP-1 and the BDP-2 or even the BDP-3 as each one has its own story.  I'm also not trying to completely justify the price hike either, meaning to a certain extent you are correct, but there is justification for some of the difference in the cost of the new pieces.  I think the big part your missing or atleast overlooking is that we use industrial boards in those products and there is a huge leap in performance between the BDP-1 to the BDP-2/3.  The BDP-1 has an AMD Geode 500lx CPU (i think), this CPU was generously compared to pentium 4 and had 256MB of ram included on the mainboard.  When we moved to the BDP-2 the only board manufacturer that would customize for us without holding us to ordering thousands at a time was another boutique company, iBase (Taiwanese company, they where great to deal with).  Not only with the BDP-2 we were significantly updating the technology used from the BDP-1 to what at the time was a modern Intel CPU, but also contained other more modern technology and versions of those technologies that would be supported and produced for many years longer then there non industrial counter parts.  So we have parts that carry a premium over over the existing equivalents because they are newer and faster, that carry the same premium for being in production for longer then average period, going into a product made by a boutique manufacturer (iBase), then being customized in small quantity for another boutique company (Bryston)  who is then using that part in there own boutique product (BDP-2).  So not only is the new part much more expensive then the original found in the BDP-1 (an order 3x the price) it also doesn't include memory, so we have additional cost, it also needs a beefier power supply, not all lot more money but still some more money.  The reason why a BDP-2 existed is people wanted a faster and/or more powerful Digital Player and that came at a cost, cause well regardless of progression more computer still cost more and as you pointed out correctly generally things that come from a low production (boutique) manufacturer typically has a higher markup.  After the BDP-2 was launched we had difficulties getting ahold of the ESI Juli@ cards, so we took what we had from the BDA-2/BUC-1 and reused it, it also measured better then the Juli@ card, but at the same time we are talking about a difference of like 0.0002% THD+N.  I know not every audiophile cares about the numbers, but as someone with an engineering background who can't hear the difference then its the numbers that I go by when I tell people who ask for my opinion that I say "they sound pretty much identical".  That's also not to say that I don't believe you when you say you prefer the Juli@ card, I do believe when you say you prefer it over the BUC Board that you do in fact believe that.  Ultimately at the end of the day all that really should matter is if you like what your listening to and enjoying it.  Now the last piece too the BDP-2 saga, by the time we released the BDP-2 officially (started delivering units to customers) it had already been long enough since the idea of a BDP-2 to notice a new trend with computers, they went from consuming more power in every new generation to consuming less power.  What this meant is when we would eventually release a BDP-3 it would be very likely we wouldn't have to change the power supply design, so that coupled with an out cry from BDP-1 owners wanting an upgrade path we took the savings (yes producing the BUC board instead of buying a boutique product saved us money, again another thing you are correct about) and put that money back into the product by making the chassis modular.  One of the reasons why this decision was made was when we evaluated a possible upgrade path for BDP-1 owners one of the things that ruled it as being not financially sound was replacing so many parts including the entire chassis.  At this point we figured down the road when we released the BDP-3 we would only need to replace part of the chassis, reuse the power supply because we'll be able to use a more powerful computer at or below the power requirement of the existing one and thus opening the possibility of a BDP-2 to BDP-3 upgrade make sense.  I feel like this rant has gone on to long and the BDP-3 story is far less interesting so I think I'll end it here.  I hope anyone who has read this has found it interesting, I know how some of you like it when we post about these things and it certainly wasn't meant to be an argument I don't think Antun has said anything wrong; It's just me talking about the BDP-2's conception and early days.

Cheers,
Chris

[R. Daneel]

Hi Antun and anyone else who may come across this,

and maybe get some  for this story

You are right, computing is getting cheaper, but at the same time that's not possible to make a blanket comparison between the BDP-1 and the BDP-2 or even the BDP-3 as each one has its own story.  I'm also not trying to completely justify the price hike either, meaning to a certain extent you are correct, but there is justification for some of the difference in the cost of the new pieces.  I think the big part your missing or atleast overlooking is that we use industrial boards in those products and there is a huge leap in performance between the BDP-1 to the BDP-2/3.  The BDP-1 has an AMD Geode 500lx CPU (i think), this CPU was generously compared to pentium 4 and had 256MB of ram included on the mainboard.  When we moved to the BDP-2 the only board manufacturer that would customize for us without holding us to ordering thousands at a time was another boutique company, iBase (Taiwanese company, they where great to deal with).  Not only with the BDP-2 we were significantly updating the technology used from the BDP-1 to what at the time was a modern Intel CPU, but also contained other more modern technology and versions of those technologies that would be supported and produced for many years longer then there non industrial counter parts.  So we have parts that carry a premium over over the existing equivalents because they are newer and faster, that carry the same premium for being in production for longer then average period, going into a product made by a boutique manufacturer (iBase), then being customized in small quantity for another boutique company (Bryston)  who is then using that part in there own boutique product (BDP-2).  So not only is the new part much more expensive then the original found in the BDP-1 (an order 3x the price) it also doesn't include memory, so we have additional cost, it also needs a beefier power supply, not all lot more money but still some more money.  The reason why a BDP-2 existed is people wanted a faster and/or more powerful Digital Player and that came at a cost, cause well regardless of progression more computer still cost more and as you pointed out correctly generally things that come from a low production (boutique) manufacturer typically has a higher markup.  After the BDP-2 was launched we had difficulties getting ahold of the ESI Juli@ cards, so we took what we had from the BDA-2/BUC-1 and reused it, it also measured better then the Juli@ card, but at the same time we are talking about a difference of like 0.0002% THD+N.  I know not every audiophile cares about the numbers, but as someone with an engineering background who can't hear the difference then its the numbers that I go by when I tell people who ask for my opinion that I say "they sound pretty much identical".  That's also not to say that I don't believe you when you say you prefer the Juli@ card, I do believe when you say you prefer it over the BUC Board that you do in fact believe that.  Ultimately at the end of the day all that really should matter is if you like what your listening to and enjoying it.  Now the last piece too the BDP-2 saga, by the time we released the BDP-2 officially (started delivering units to customers) it had already been long enough since the idea of a BDP-2 to notice a new trend with computers, they went from consuming more power in every new generation to consuming less power.  What this meant is when we would eventually release a BDP-3 it would be very likely we wouldn't have to change the power supply design, so that coupled with an out cry from BDP-1 owners wanting an upgrade path we took the savings (yes producing the BUC board instead of buying a boutique product saved us money, again another thing you are correct about) and put that money back into the product by making the chassis modular.  One of the reasons why this decision was made was when we evaluated a possible upgrade path for BDP-1 owners one of the things that ruled it as being not financially sound was replacing so many parts including the entire chassis.  At this point we figured down the road when we released the BDP-3 we would only need to replace part of the chassis, reuse the power supply because we'll be able to use a more powerful computer at or below the power requirement of the existing one and thus opening the possibility of a BDP-2 to BDP-3 upgrade make sense.  I feel like this rant has gone on to long and the BDP-3 story is far less interesting so I think I'll end it here.  I hope anyone who has read this has found it interesting, I know how some of you like it when we post about these things and it certainly wasn't meant to be an argument I don't think Antun has said anything wrong; It's just me talking about the BDP-2's conception and early days.

Cheers,
Chris

Hi Chris!

Thank you very much for the elaborate and interesting reply! I am happy you thought my post warranted such a detailed reply so thank you!

The story is interesting indeed! Just to be clear here, I found the BUC board and Juli@ more similar than different. However, the BUC board is a proprietary design so not really applicable for common computer use like the Juli@. It is this application I was referring to when I said why I think Juli@ is an excellent product - i.e. in comparison to other soundcards. I didn't make that one clear, I'm sorry.

I am also quite pleased with the way you were able to make the BDP player into an upgradeable platform. The first thing I noticed with the BDP-2 was that the rear panel is now a separate piece as opposed to the one on the BDP-1 which was part of the bottom panel.

Let me ask you one thing though - in your experience and given the market trends of 'integration', would you say there will be significant interest for standalone products like the BDP in the forseeable future or do you think functionality of these products will merge with preamps and integrated amplifiers - i.e. you will have the functionality but it won't be a separate product?

Cheers!
Antun

[Grit]

I used to cringe at the prospect of combined components. Now, I'm finding myself okay with it, sometimes. I would prefer a combined BDP/BDA unit. I'd also strongly consider the new BR-20 if I was in the market for a pre-amp. I've determined *I* am in a niche market among audiophiles: I value home theater almost as much as I value 2-ch audio. But, I'm reconsidering lots of things. I'll spend less money on cables and power conditioning with integrated equipment. I'll get a higher WAF (wife approval factor) too. And it's easier to control.

I think separates will likely always be able to achieve a higher performance than combined systems, but at what price increase? Is an extra 3% or so worth separate components, cables, etc?

I personally LOVE Bryston's sound. If they feel confident in a combined piece of equipment, I'll probably love it too. Mixed feelings aside, I think combining components (only because Bryston and others can achieve amazing results) will be the wave of the future.

Side note - Bryston is definitely a 2-ch audio company at heart. They applied their AMAZING skills to multi-channel audio (for movies, in my case) and came up with a winner. I wish there was some way they could continue that. I do not WANT to have a separate 2-ch audio and multi-channel audio system feeding into the same amps/speakers to achieve the results I want. I would greatly welcome a Bryston processor that could do what the BR-20 does AND handle modern Dolby Atomos/DTS-X decoding. Given the apparent stagnation of the SP-4, it's simply not meant to be.

I don't post this to be angry or anything else negative toward Bryston. They've been everything I could hope for in a high end audio company. As someone who would now prefer more component integration without sacrificing much (if any) of the audio quality of separates, I think, to answer your question, combining components is the way of the forseeable future.

I don't WANT to consider a separate AV processor, but I am. I'm looking at a separte AV processor and a BR-20, but I'd STRONGLY prefer as much of a unified system as possible. In MY revised invisionment, I'd at least prefer a combined DAC/BDP. A pre-amp/DAC/BDP solves ALL of my 2-ch audio issues. So, thats ONE component I need for 2ch audio, 1 component I need for HT audio, and just amps. That's MUCH easier than a separate DAC/Player/Pre-amp AND a separate Pre/Pro for HT.

- Garrett