Actually, I don't believe jitter is related to spinning the CD. My understanding is that jitter is a time based error. It occurs between the clock used to get the data off the disk in a CD transport and the clock used in the DAC system. In the simple CD 'player' configuration the identical master clock is used for these two functions and so in this 'synchronous system' jitter isn't a concern. The master clock that's in charge of getting the data off the disk is also used by the CD players internal DAC. This is the best possible situation, and in that regard, the CD 'player' is king as long as the DAC and analog output circuitry of the player are well made (and there's the rub). This synchronous system should arguably beat the transport/BDP-1/DAC situation if jitter is the argument.
I doubt errors are the answer why the BDP would best a CD player either. The playback of a CD isn't really "real time". The data is stored in a buffer as it's de-interleaved and decoded. This buffering stabilizes the data and allows it to flow out at an even rate. There's ample time for error correction. Any reading I've done on CD error correction discusses the algorithm Cross Interleave Reed-Solomon (CIRC). There's lots of math equations involved that one could read up on, but the usual conclusion is that it's a fairly effective system.
So it leaves me wondering why the BDP would be better than a high quality CD player. Bryston's forte is analog output stages, but the BDP doesn't have that capability. It doesn't even have a DAC. There's certainly value in anecdotal evidence, but I'd buy into the hype more easily if there were some supportable technical reasons.
brucek
I agree with you for the most part, IMO the best made CD players are still the kings due to reasons you described, provided you have perfect CDs, but that is a rare case, so you depend more often than not on the dreaded real-time error correction.
And there is still jitter at play, it can never be eliminated, and certainly not when a mechanical spinning device is the source of the data that must be framed and clocked, regardless of buffering, some timing errors are unavoidable.
But in principle I agree, in ideal world jitter in top end CD player is magnitudes smaller.
What I do not agree with is that the buffering you describe allows for “ample time for error correction” during CD playback. That is not correct, multiple attempts to read problematic sector are not possible during CD playback, and is one of reasons why technically PC based transport with ripped tracks can be superior.
With understanding that synchronous system in CD player is superior and there is no need to subject data to SPDIF framing and transport what is the major source of jitter, BDP-1 can be actually superior simply because in real world the quality of CD media is far from ideal and the inherent advantage of top end CD player can quickly melt away when compared to top end PC based transport such as BDP-1. Add to that BDP-1’s capability to support high resolution material and its advantages quickly overcome disadvantages rooted in reliance on jitter inducing SPDIF transport.
On top of that one cannot ignore the advantage of convenient access to software that BDP-1 provides. Price has to be considered as well, top end CD players are quite expensive.
In conclusion, BDP-1+BDA-1 could be considered a winner in comparison to top end CD player despite BDP-1 being very jittery source in comparison to superior method of data transmission to DAC section in top end CD player, due to CD player reliance of real-time error correction and less than ideal media, due to BDP-1 supporting high resolution software, and finally due to convenience of access.
