[R. Daneel]

Sorry if this post is lengthier than previously thought, but they're merely my impressions for now. If any of you would point me to some game-changers you'd think, please let me try them. (I'm still hoping to find these and modernize the setup

Hi Marius!

What you've written above only reinforces my own conclusion.

At one point, I had both BDP-1 and -2, at the same time. I was using the BDA-2 to do the comparisons. The BDP-1 was a late generation model, with the ESI Juli@ card while the BDP-2 came with the Bryston's BUC card preinstalled.

Now, I was listening to my own orchestral recordings, really reference-quality programme, and still, through the BDA-2, BHA-1 and Sennheiser HD800 combination which which I am intimately familiar, I could not hear any discernible difference.

There were moments when I thought I heard something new but switching to the other player convinced me it was time to stop comparing because my concentration was at it's end. This happened on numerous occassions.

I then stopped doing A/B comparisons and listened to a single track constantly. Noth that I heard something new, but I wanted to make sure I was fully familiar with it. But the results were inconclusive and once again I had to admit that for all intents and purposes, both machines sounded identical.

Coincidentally, I also had a Naim ND5 XS music player at the same time so I decided to compare it to the BDP-1 and -2. I was  concinced I would run into another wall but this time things were diferent. Not to give credit either way for this is not the thread for that, but Naim was consistently more closed-in sounding. Mid-range lacked a bit of the finer texture or tapestry if you will so the cello sounded a bit more abrasive than what I would consider accurate. Naim was also lacking some of the Bryston's atmosphere which I believe was a result of a restriction in the air frequencies. Top end in other words.

I brought the Naim into equation here to demonstrate that there can be differences between digital transports. But it is not as a big of a difference as people (or manufacturers) would like think. Sadly, it takes a lot of experience and patience to be able to tell these differences and contrary to what majority thinks, it does not come with equipment. Buying the product doesn't turn you into an instalt expert just like buying a Ferrari doesn't turn you into Schummacher.

Wow, it appears I DID have a lot to say about that!

As for the BDA-1 and -2 converters, keep in mind that both are essentially the same machine. They share the same basic circuit layout, the same input switching, the same discrete input stage before the DAC, the same discrete analogoue output stage. The differences are in the USB circuit and a choice of a different pair of DAC chips as well as some differences in the power supply. Similar design approaches in engineering inevitably must lead to similar results.

My dream DAC is a dCS but I could never afford to own one. The good thing is that the BDA-2 does sound wonderful and is as good of a DAC as I have heard it. Perhaps not as resolving as a NAD M51 or as dramatic as a Musical Fidelity M6DAC but somehow more convincing in the musical sense. I have no doubt the BDA-1 is just like that.

Cheers!
Antun

[zoom25]

Thanks to both of you for the impressions. 

The one thing that I was pondering about if I later on go for a separate Bryston stack for headphones, consisting of BHA-1, BDP-1, HD 800, LCD-s...with either BDA-1 or BDA-2...if its better to go with BDA-1 because its less fatiguing even if there is a decrease in resolution (but how much). I know the USB is better on BDA-2, but the AES though...incoherent rambling.

[CanadianMaestro]

Thanks to both of you for the impressions. 

The one thing that I was pondering about if I later on go for a separate Bryston stack for headphones, consisting of BHA-1, BDP-1, HD 800, LCD-s...with either BDA-1 or BDA-2...if its better to go with BDA-1 because its less fatiguing even if there is a decrease in resolution (but how much). I know the USB is better on BDA-2, but the AES though...incoherent rambling.

If you can get a used BDA-1 from CAM or AudioMart, you will be in heaven, paired with a BHA-1.

As Antun said above, BDA-1 and -2 are essentially the same machine. Why pay a lot more $ for a -2?
 

If you must have USB, then maybe a BDA-2.... but I use a Cambridge DACMagic bought cheap, for my USB applications. Gorgeous.

[zoom25]

If you can get a used BDA-1 from CAM or AudioMart, you will be in heaven, paired with a BHA-1.

As Antun said above, BDA-1 and -2 are essentially the same machine. Why pay a lot more $ for a -2?
 

If you must have USB, then maybe a BDA-2.... but I use a Cambridge DACMagic bought cheap, for my USB applications. Gorgeous.

Yeah I share the same sentiment. Same reason why I would rather buy two used BDP-1's over a single BDP-2 (used). On one side, there is the aesthetics of the Bryston stack, on the other hand there are other recent components in the pro world that have done a remarkable job with their digital and analog implementation. Jitter is lower around 0.045 picosecond for majority of the bandwidth in the Crane Song Solaris and the newer Avocet. Also, the Dangerous Convert-2.

Do you find the USB on your DACMagic better than the USB on the BDA-1?

[gdayton]

I don't think so. There are certainly some similarities between BDA-1 and BDA-2, but the AKM chips in the BDA-2 really do outshine the BDA-1. That's no insult to the BDA-1. After all, it is quite an amazing sounding DAC, but the BDA-2 is an impressive step up. The primary motivation for developing the BDA-2 though was indeed the high res USB input.

The gist of your recommendation though - that a used BDA-1 is a fantastic deal - is still spot on.

My 2 cents
-Gary

[R. Daneel]

Deleted...

[R. Daneel]

Hi!

Regarding jitter, it is one of the enemies that plagues digital equipment. But if we said it was the biggest enemy, it would be very far from the truth. Many other things come in play long before it becomes the main problem.

Many articles published in scientific and university circles suggest that anything below half a nanosecond (500 picoseconds) will have negligible effect on audio. As you can imagine, jitter is essentially analogous to speed fluttering in analogue recording and playback equipment. There it is quantified in percentages. But in digital equipment, considering very high sample rates of multiple thousands of samples being encoded or decoded in a single second, the effect manifests itself as distortion. A typical consumer CD player will have anything from 1.5 to 2.5 ns of jitter and even this is very difficult to hear and takes a trained ear. Much better are DVD players due to far more advanced error-correction systems designed to play video from all sorts of burned and damaged media. Yet as transports, DVD players do not sound significantly different from CD players.

Now here's the thing that IS important: noise. Digital clocking systems are mechanical devices that deviate. The more stable the clock is, the lower the jitter. But that doesn't mean you need to have a clock that will make a single mistake in a thousand years. That's important for - writst watches! For digital playback systems, the thing that is more important is a clean supply of power to the clock. A super-precision clock is useless without it.

Sadly, as with all things audio, clean power supply is what costs the most. That means shunt regulators and using them is expensive. Bryston DACs use these regulators by the way.

In the next few months the new buzz word will be "a femtosecond clock". Before that it was "DSD" and before that it was "24/192". But what do all these words amount to is a specification given by the manufacturer who makes the responsible part. So if I am a manufacturer of some DAC and use a DSD-capable DAC chip, I will happily say my DAC is a DSD-capable DAC. What I won't say is that I'm using a cheap switch-mode power supply to power the chip.

The whole market is one giant mess with literally hundreds of manufacturers. DOn't believe everything they say.

As for DacMagic, it's a lovely little machine! I always had a soft spot for Cambridge Audio guys since they were always so honest about what they make and don't charge too much for it. In all honest, I always found their 600-range CD players with Wolfson DACs spectacular and at that price, something of a daylight robbery. They are a great foundation for tube modifications too but we  can talk about that some other time.

Getting a used BDA-1 is a good recommendation. The Cirrus Logic chips used in it are common but I've used them in some tube projects and they were spectacular. I must also admit I like the look of those two smaller toroids better than the single large one in the BDA-2.

Cheers!
Antun

[James Tanner]

CD player will have anything from 1.5 to 2.5 ns of jitter

Hi

The all-in-one CD 'player' doesn't use the S/PDIF transfer of data and clock.

The player is a synchronous system where jitter is essentially non-existent. The clock responsible for retrieving the data as it comes from the CD itself is also responsible for the D/A conversion process so there's no discrepancy between the master clock and any of its derivatives.

In this regard the CD player is superior. It can't be beat.

[CanadianMaestro]

Do you find the USB on your DACMagic better than the USB on the BDA-1?

I've never used the USB on BDA-1, as it's on my main system which is in a diff room than my desktop.

[CanadianMaestro]

I don't think so. There are certainly some similarities between BDA-1 and BDA-2, but the AKM chips in the BDA-2 really do outshine the BDA-1. That's no insult to the BDA-1. After all, it is quite an amazing sounding DAC, but the BDA-2 is an impressive step up. The primary motivation for developing the BDA-2 though was indeed the high res USB input.

The gist of your recommendation though - that a used BDA-1 is a fantastic deal - is still spot on.

My 2 cents
-Gary

Thanks for this clarification.

Curious as to why Bryston used AKM chips on BDA-2 and not continue using the Cirrus chips of BDA-1?

[James Tanner]

Thanks for this clarification.

Curious as to why Bryston used AKM chips on BDA-2 and not continue using the Cirrus chips of BDA-1?

Better noise floor and lower distortion. Have a look at the measurements in the Stereophile review of the AKM DACs in the BDA 3 DAC. They had to adjust the measuring system down another 10dB to 150dB down as the noise floor was so low. The jitter on the BDP 2 is about 8 ps.

James

[R. Daneel]

CD player will have anything from 1.5 to 2.5 ns of jitter

Hi

The all-in-one CD 'player' doesn't use the S/PDIF transfer of data and clock.

The player is a synchronous system where jitter is essentially non-existent. The clock responsible for retrieving the data as it comes from the CD itself is also responsible for the D/A conversion process so there's no discrepancy between the master clock and any of its derivatives.

In this regard the CD player is superior. It can't be beat.

Hi James!

You are right, of course!

However, I was speaking about transports and using a CD or a DVD player as a digital transport via it's digital output only, in connection to Marius' post about BDP-1 and -2 players. CD players don't excel at this usually even though there are exceptions.

Cheers!
Antun

[James Tanner]

Hi James!

You are right, of course!

However, I was speaking about transports and using a CD or a DVD player as a digital transport via it's digital output only, in connection to Marius' post about BDP-1 and -2 players. CD players don't excel at this usually even though there are exceptions.

Cheers!
Antun

Hi - OK I see what you mean and that info was courtesy of Bruce.

james

[R. Daneel]

Hi - OK I see what you mean and that info was courtesy of Bruce.

james

LOL! No worries, this is a forum!

[zoom25]

I'd be curious to know if you guys are able to get this one right. http://www.cranesong.com/jitter_1.html

It's actually a fun test, and it seemed easier on speakers. I was able to get the right answer on my first try without feeling like I was guessing. There was a feeling in addition to the sonics. The page after gives some nice Info as well. Dave Hill is definitely one of us obsessive tweakers that legitimately pays attention to things where others in the industry think it may not make a difference.

[XMAN]

I've experienced a crash once again after using the buttons on the BDP 2  I had to unplug the unit twice I guess I didn't wait long enough the first time is this being addressed in the next update?  I know others have experienced this as well.

[Pundamilia]

I've experienced a crash once again after using the buttons on the BDP 2  I had to unplug the unit twice I guess I didn't wait long enough the first time is this being addressed in the next update?  I know others have experienced this as well.

+1

[Marius]

I've never used the USB on BDA-1, as it's on my main system which is in a diff room than my desktop.

HI Pete,


The usb in my setup was mainly used for streaming Digital Concert Hall from the (usb out) Mac to the Tv and Sound system. Since DCH have several dedicated apps now, i don't need that anymore, and indeed never use the USB on the BDA1.


All Bryston dacs are great dacs. BDA1, well, its a classic for me, BDA2 has a better usb if you need it (with the BDP2 IAD that is a very useful option) and i feel i must save for the BDA3 now, because of the HDMI deembedder and better specs on the chips (though i fear it will sound just as magnificently as the BDA1, and the amount of inputs gone will pose other setup issues. Choices, choices. )


BDP2: my choice would be to go for the 2 if started from scratch. Better specs, bigger memory, faster processor, better Lan and powered USB ports. Same sound though.... so already owning a BDP1 with wonderful playback makes that somewhat harder to explain at home ..


Will make the effort though. I think Bryston might develop a BDP3 soon, so better wait for that
In the meantime i'll experiment/play with the Sonore/Raspberry family for a fraction of the money, and use the latter for my home automation in the same time 


All in all, can't go wrong with Bryston, especially if you wait for the second iteration of devices.


Cheers,
Marius

[CanadianMaestro]

Hi Marius,

Agree with you on that -- if one is getting into Bryston digital for the first time, then go all out -- BDP-2/BDA-3.

Maybe a BDP-3 is in the works -- even faster load times, etc etc. I doubt however if the SQ will blow away BDP-1. Just a gut feeling.

For me, I can't justify $4K for a new DAC like BDA-3. Its jitter may be lower than BDA-1 by a few ps, but my ears can't tell the difference in my system. Very happy with my BDA-1; it often has a "presence" and warmth that can't be matched at that orig price point. Besides, $4K buys a lot of other things... 

I'm off the merry-go-'round as far as major upgrades go. Even a cubed power amp ain't in the works for me. Would rather test Bryston's 20-yr warranty on my 14B2 !   

I'm just too jaded with the marketers and "new is better" assumptions. Would rather put trust in testimonials from experienced users who are just as jaded...but in a good way.
 

Enjoy the musik! 

Cheers
Pete

[R. Daneel]

Hi!

I think if there is going to be a BDP-3, it won't be based on an Intel solution. It will be based on the Raspberry Pi like the BDP-Pi. So it would be a completely different platform.

One has to keep in mind that the "IAD", as Bryston calls it, is essentially a BUC-1 circuit board fitted with PCI-Express interface to fit the BDP-2's motherboard. This is why the BDP-2 recognises it as a "BUC board". So unless you see Bryston coming out with a newer version of this circuit board, I doubt there will be a BDP-3.

I think the main reason why Bryston replaced the Juli@ board from ESI with the BUC board is an economical one. ESI Juli@ is an expensive board to make, even if the list price is 200 Euro. ESI sold a lot of these and they're based in Taiwan where raw materials and machine work are a LOT less costly, even though physical labour is far more costly than people realise. Taiwan is not exactly mainland China. In other words, where it is viable for ESI to make a lot of these and sell them with minimal profit margin, the Juli@ came as a significant cost to Bryston. Having a proprietary board built was more economical for them I think, especially when the cost was amortised with the BUC-1 USB-S/PDIF interface. That doesn't mean it's not better than the Juli@ however, even if I personally couldn't identify any discernable difference.

Cheers!
Antun