How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 1218 times.

DarqueKnight

How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« on: 13 Jan 2019, 01:35 am »
Introduction


Figure 1. I appreciate Bryston providing an upgrade path for BDP-2 owners.

My BDP-2 digital player was sent back to Bryston's factory to be upgraded to the current model BDP-3. The upgrade consisted of a new main processor board and a new rear panel. The cost of the upgrade was $1500 + shipping costs for a total of $1591.62. I asked Bryston if could buy the upgrade parts and install them myself, but I was told no, because the upgrade consists of processes, procedures, and tests to make sure the new processor board works properly with the various subsystems of the player. The player was gone a total of 56 days.

The BDP-3 offers the following performance advantages over the BDP-2:

1. A faster processor and twice the memory ( 8 GB vs 4 GB).

2.  Faster indexing time for digital libraries. The BDP-1 indexed my 3 TB music library in 15 minutes 30 seconds. The BDP-2 indexed it in 6 minutes 55 seconds. The BDP-3 indexed it in 4 minutes 25 seconds.

3. The addition of faster USB 3.0 ports.

4. The ability to play DSD files natively rather than in DoP (DSD over PCM) format.

5. Two separate USB buses.

While the BDP-2 was at Bryston undergoing its transformation, I moved the BDP-1 from the home theater system to the 2 channel system. When the BDP-3 returned, it was compared to the BDP-1 and to the BDP-2 used in my system at work.


Figure 2. Top to bottom: BDP-1, BDP-2, BDP-3, front view.


Figure 3. Top to bottom: BDP-1, BDP-2, BDP-3, rear view.


Figure 4. Front to rear: BDP-1, BDP-2, BDP-3.


Figure 5. BDP-1 inside.


Figure 6. BDP-2 inside.


Figure 7. BDP-3 inside.

Evaluation Methodology

My stereo equipment evaluation methodology is consists of mapping the locations and characteristics of sound images and describing the qualities and characteristics of those sound images. This method has its roots in the evaluation methodology suggested by two Bell Telephone Laboratories scientists, F. K. Harvey and M. R. Schroeder, in a paper presented at the 12th Annual Convention of the the Audio Engineering Society on October 11, 1960:

"Critical listeners were sought in these tests because of a desire to set permanent standards. At the moment, only a small percentage of people fully appreciate high fidelity. Even less appreciate or understand stereo. However, there is a growing sophistication evidenced among users of stereo equipment. Anticipating the future, it seemed wise to avoid naive or unconcerned personnel in these tests to prevent establishing loose standards which eventually might have to be abandoned.

The listeners chosen were sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education before testing. They were felt to be the equal of any serious listener who is accustomed to playing the same records many times and thus becomes familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects."
[/i]

Reference: Harvey, F. K. and Schroeder, M. R., "Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28.

Figures 8 and 9 show the sound localization charts used to characterize and map sound images in the sound stage of my 2 channel stereo system.


Figure 8. Lateral sound stage evaluation chart.


Figure 9. Aerial sound stage evaluation chart.


Figure 10. A single track, "Saxy", from Jeanette Harris' "Saxified" CD was used to evaluate
the BDP-1, BDP-2, and BDP-3. The CD was ripped to lossless FLAC format, then the FLAC files were converted to single rate DSD files (.dsf format)


Jeanette Harris' "Saxy" is of above average recording quality and consists of vocals, soprano saxophone, and synthesized bass, drums, percussion, strings, and other sound effects. One of the sound effects is an overlay of the "snap, crackle, and pop" surface noise of a vinyl record at the beginning of the song. Multiple plays were required to document all the sound images in the song. After 15 plays, the sound stage charts shown in figure 11 were derived for the BDP-1.


Figure 11. Sound stage charts for "Saxy" through the BDP-1.

When it was time to listen to the BDP-2, I did not concentrate on trying to discern a difference between it and the BDP-1. My focus was on localizing sound images in the sound stage and characterizing the sound of those images. After 8 plays, the sound stage charts for "Saxy" through the BDP-2 were derived and are shown in figure 12. I did not use the BDP-1's charts as a reference for the BDP-2 session, although I did retain some memory of where the major sound images were. Documenting the sound stage of the BDP-2 took substantially fewer plays because familiarity with the song, and more importantly, the BDP-2's higher resolution, facilitated easier perception of fine details. The following differences in sound localization and sound character were noted:

1. The artificial vinyl surface noise was louder, clearer and different in character. The transients were sharper with the BDP-2. The "snap, crackle, and pop" with the BDP-1 was similar to the sound of wadding a soft sheet of paper. The "snap, crackle, and pop" with the BDP-2 was similar to the sound heard when holding your ear close to a bowl of Rice Krispies cereal.

2. The piano image was larger and about 1 foot further to the right. The image of the piano note's echo was larger and about 6 inches further to the left. Piano notes had more sustain and natural decay.

3. The left and right images of the bell trees moved closer to the edges of the speakers.

4. Similar to the vinyl surface noise, the images of the finger snaps were louder, clearer and more articulate.

5. The overall sound was apparently louder, although it didn't measure any louder on the sound level meter.

6. Images in the center (front to back: vocal, soprano saxophone, electric bass, kick drum) had more front to back distance between them.

7. The tactile sensation of vibrations coming through the floor, through the seat, through the arm rests, and through the air against my body were increased. The difference in tactile sensation was like the difference between lightly brushing your fingers against your arm and lightly pressing your fingers against your arm.

8. Sound images sounded heavier.

9. The reverb around the vocals and soprano saxophone were more sharply defined.


Figure 12. Sound stage charts for "Saxy" through the BDP-2.

The sound stage charts for the BDP-3 were derived after 8 plays and are shown in figure 13. There were no perceived differences in sound localization. Image sizes and locations were the same as with the BDP-2. There were no perceived differences in tactile sensation. There were a few differences in sound character:

1. Bass was more articulate and defined.

2. The sound was apparently louder than the BDP-2 - to the point that I wanted to turn the volume down a couple of steps. The volume control of my preamp works in increments of 1 dB.

3. There was more ambient sound of the recording space.

4. There was more clearly defined space between music notes.

5. There was more image weight.

6. Background percussion instruments had more clarity and detail.


Figure 13. Sound stage charts for "Saxy" through the BDP-3.

After all three listening sessions were completed, notes from the three sessions were compared. There were some repeated back and forth trials between the players based on the differences noted. For example, I noted a substantial difference in the sound character of the vinyl surface noise sound effect and finger snap sound effect between the BDP-1 and the BDP-2 and BDP-3. There was also a substantial difference in the piano image size and placement between the BDP-1 and the BDP-2 and BDP-3.

Equipment Setup

The sound level of the preamp was set at 60, which provided an average sound level of 85 dB c-weighted. Music was played through BDP-3 for 100 hours prior to critical listening sessions. After the 90 hour mark, the character of the bass noticeably improved with more articulation and definition. I did not perceive any differences or improvements after the 90 hour mark.

The Bryston digital players were connected to a dCS Puccini word clock and a dCS Debussy DAC. The terms "word clock" and "master clock" are sometimes used interchangeably. However, the difference is that a word clock replaces the internal clock of the devices connected to it. A master clock synchronizes (controls) the clocks of the devices connected to it. Therefore, with a word clock, a higher degree of jitter reduction is available because there is only one clock for all the digital devices in a system. The Bryston digital players do not have a word clock input, but the Puccini word clock was able to send word clock signals via their USB ports. The Debussy DAC indicates receipt of a word clocked input signal via a "Word Clock" indicator light on the front panel. There was a difference in clarity, detail, and spatial rendering when the USB connection between the Puccini word clock and the Bryston players was connected and disconnected.


Figure 14. Revelation Audio Labs split leg USB 2.0 cable ($649 - don't be mad). After the USB connection between source and the DAC has been set up, the power signal is typically not required any longer. Separating the audio signal wires and power signal wires allows the power leg, and its associated electrical noise, to be disconnected.

With the BDP-1 and BDP-2, there was a small, but not subtle, improvement in clarity, detail, and spatial rendering when the power leg of the RAL USB cable was disconnected. With the BDP-3, I did not hear a difference whether the power leg was connected or not. This may be due to the BDP-3's lower noise floor. Contributing to the BDP-3's lower noise floor is the fact that there are two separate USB buses. The external hard drive was connected to the USB 3 port on USB bus 1. The dual leg USB cable was connected to the two USB 3 ports on USB bus 2.


Figure 15. BDP-1 connection block diagram.


Figure 16. BDP-2 connection block diagram.


Figure 17. BDP-3 connection block diagram.


Figure 18. The listening room is 21 feet x 17 feet. The speakers are along the long wall. The listening position is 12 feet from the front plane of the speakers.


Figure 19. Two channel stereo system from listening position. Such Good Sound!


Figure 20. Digital source components, left to right: dCs Debussy DAC, dCS Puccini word clock, Bryston BDP-3 digital player.


Figure 21. Amplification suite: Pass Laboratories X600.5 monoblock power amplifiers and Pass Laboratories XP-30 three-chassis preamplifier.


Figure 22. The BDP-3 is controlled via its Internet interface with a Dell VenuePro 7140 docked tablet computer.


Figure 23. Music files are stored on a 6TB Western Digital Black hard drive. The hard drive enclosure is a Rosewill Armer RX304-APU3-35B aluminum enclosure with variable speed fan and USB 3 and eSATA connections. The Rosewill enclosure spins down the hard drive after 20 minutes of inactivity.


Figure 24. The Rosewill enclosure's front panel display. The enclosure sits on a 5" x 5" x 1" block of Sorbothane.


Figure 25. Rosewill enclosure on left, Sabrent EC-UEIS7 enclosure on right. This time the Rosewill won.

The Sabrent enclosure was used with the BDP-2. The BDP-2 has eSATA and USB 2.0 inputs. In a comparison of external hard drive enclosures in March of 2017, the Sabrent's eSATA connection sounded better than its USB connection and better than the other two enclosures regardless of connection method. The Rosewill came in last place. The BDP-3 does not have an eSATA port. It has HDMI, USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 ports.

The Rosewill's feature set made it my personal preference going into the March 2017 tests. It offered a quieter fan, lower vibration, display of temperature and fan speed, and the ability to spin down a hard drive. I wanted it to win. Unfortunately, it didn't sound the best of the three with the BDP-2. This time, the Rosewill's USB 3.0 interface connected to the BDP-3 via its USB 3 port, sounded better than the Sabrent's USB 2.0 interface connected to one of the BDP-3's USB 3.0 or 2.0 ports.

Tweaks

The top cover and chassis were damped with Dynamat Xtreme. The rubber pads above and below the power supply transformer were replaced with pads of Dynamat Xtreme. A strip of Dynamat Xtreme was applied to the perimeter of the transformer. The transformer bolt was loosened a little because it sounds better when it is not tightly coupled to the Dynamat pads. The transformer also sounds better when it is not tightly coupled to the stock rubber pads. Over tightening the transformer bolt compromises the elasticity of both the stock rubber pads and the Dynamat.

The stock fuses were replaced with HiFi Tuning Supreme fuses.

For external vibration damping, the BDP-3's feet rest on a combination of Black Diamond Racing Mark 4 cones and Mini Pits. All of that rests on a PS Audio PowerBase isolation platform. For proper coupling to the PowerBase, a component needs to weigh at least 15 pounds. The BDP-3 weighs 12 pounds. A 22 pound granite slab was placed on the BDP-3 to properly couple it to the PowerBase.


Figure 26. Dynamat sheets on top covers of BDP-1, BDP-2, and BDP-3.


Figure 27. Dynamat pad for transformer.

USB Cable Trials


Figure 28. USB cables auditioned with the BDP-3. Bottom: Belkin Gold Series USB 2.0 computer grade cable ($8). Middle row: Pangea USB-PC USB 2.0 audio cable ($35), Revelation Audio Labs Dual Conduit USB 2.0 audio cable ($549). Top row: Revelation Audio Labs Dual Leg USB 2.0 audio cable ($549), Revelation Audio Labs Dual Leg USB 2.0 audio cable with Conductive Carbon Infused Composite outer jacket ($649)

I thought it would be instructive to try a variety of USB cables with the BDP-3. In contrast to the computer grade Belkin cable, the audio grade USB cables from Pangea and Revelation Audio Labs offered progressively better electrical noise abatement technologies, and progressively better spatial performance and stereophonic detail. The interested reader can find technical details on each manufacturer's website.

Further Study

I am looking into replacing the hard drive enclosure's AC adapter with a low noise DC power supply made by ifi Audio.

General Observations And Comments

I did not find the BDP-3 to be as great of an improvement over the BDP-2 as the BDP-2 was over the BDP-1, but the performance and functionality improvements were worth the investment.

In the future, when I am more dedicated to audio than I am now, I will form a posse committee and repeat this evaluation in a quadruple blind test format. :)


Associated Equipment

PS Audio PowerBase isolation platforms for DAC, BDP-3, and U-Clock
22 pound granite slabs to couple source components to isolation platforms
Black Diamond Racing Isolation Mini Pits and Mk IV Cones
dCS Puccini U-Clock word clock
dCS Debussy DAC
Rosewill Armer RX304-APU3-35B hard drive enclosure with 6 TB WD Black hard drive
Pass Labs XP-30 line level preamplifier
Pass Labs X600.5 monoblock power amplifiers
AudioQuest Sky XLR interconnects
AudioQuest Everest speaker cables
Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy CryoSilver digital coaxial cable - RCA connectors
Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy CryoSilver digital coaxial cable - BNC connectors
Revelation Audio Labs Prophecy CryoSilver USB 2.0 dual leg cable
PS Audio PerfectWave AC-12 power cords
PS Audio PerfectWave P-10 AC regenerator
Polk Audio SDA SRS 1.2TL loudspeakers (heavily modified)
Salamander Synergy Triple 30 audio credenza





James Tanner

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 17717
  • The Demo is Everything!
    • http://www.bryston.com
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #1 on: 13 Jan 2019, 02:19 am »
 :bowdown:

schmidtmike76

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #2 on: 13 Jan 2019, 02:55 pm »
Another amazing write up DarqueKnight.

artur9

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 234
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #3 on: 13 Jan 2019, 03:30 pm »
Wow!  Thanks, that's amazing.  I have a BDP-1 and I often wonder what going up the line would offer.

Grant Hill

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 263
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #4 on: 14 Jan 2019, 08:38 am »
thank you for sharing!!

ragg987

Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #5 on: 14 Jan 2019, 02:33 pm »
Thanks for the very detailed write-up.

Just an observation, I notice your equipment rack is between your speakers. In my system I have noticed that the soundstage and imaging are not so good if I have any objects between the speakers. This is a definite and repeatable effect - I used to have a centre speaker in between and pulling the L+R forward so there is clear line of sight between them adds coherency to the image.

I discovered this effect by accident - I had temporarily stowed a cardboard box between the speakers and was puzzled when I next listened to how poor the sound became.

Might be worth a try - the WAF is not so great, though.

DarqueKnight

Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #6 on: 14 Jan 2019, 08:22 pm »

Just an observation, I notice your equipment rack is between your speakers. In my system I have noticed that the soundstage and imaging are not so good if I have any objects between the speakers. This is a definite and repeatable effect - I used to have a centre speaker in between and pulling the L+R forward so there is clear line of sight between them adds coherency to the image.

I agree that objects between the speakers can affect imaging. However, in the case of the speakers in my 2 channel stereo system, they do not acoustically "see" the equipment cabinet and they acoustically "see" each other.
The drivers and tweeters are well above the cabinet. The frequencies that the ear uses for sound localization are in the midrange region. I have had conventional speakers in this room, both dynamic and Magneplanar, and I did need to move them forward of the cabinet.

With this room, the wall behind the speakers and the wall in front of the speakers have more effect on sound quality than the cabinet.

The speakers are connected to each other via cables and and isolation transformer. Each speaker feeds an inverted stereo signal to the other speaker. This has the effect of cancelling the interaural crosstalk, or comb filtering, that arises due to a single sound image coming from two point sources (the left and right speakers). In the real world, a musical instrument's primary sound emanates from a single location. We are able to localize the sound because it arrives at our two ears with different delay aspects. Reproducing that same sound through a pair of stereo loudspeakers means the original instrument is now rendered by two point sources. The left speaker sends a crosstalk signal to the right ear and vice-versa. These crosstalk signals interfere and limit stereo imaging. Cancelling these signals, by feeding an inverted version of each speaker's signal to the opposite speaker, improves stereo imaging considerably.

Shown below are the 2 channel system with grilles removed:



In my home theater system, I have conventional speakers (Polk Audio LSiM 707) and they are pushed out a bit from the cabinet between them.
Diffraction effects from the cabinet are also minimized because the midrange drivers and tweeter are well above the cabinet:







gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 351
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #7 on: 16 Jan 2019, 08:13 pm »
Very nice review, but I thought the BDP-3 bettered the BDP-2 in that the former seems to play the bass notes in the BDP-3 were more linear and the notes in music sounds more extended. In addition, the USB input sound has been improved to the point they rival and sometimes sound better than the digital input. While you have much better equipment than mine, maybe my ears are better. :lol: :o

DarqueKnight

Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #8 on: 16 Jan 2019, 09:53 pm »
Very nice review, but I thought the BDP-3 bettered the BDP-2 in that the former seems to play the bass notes in the BDP-3 were more linear and the notes in music sounds more extended. In addition, the USB input sound has been improved to the point they rival and sometimes sound better than the digital input. While you have much better equipment than mine, maybe my ears are better. :lol: :o

I agree that the bass performance of the BDP-3 is better than the BDP-2, and said so:

"Bass was more articulate and defined."

I will also agree that the BDP-3's USB sound is much improved and this is the interface that I currently use. However, I have found that my choice of USB, AES, or S/PDIF, and the sound quality thereof, depends on the other equipment used with one of Bryston's digital players.
« Last Edit: 17 Jan 2019, 05:48 am by DarqueKnight »

schmidtmike76

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #9 on: 19 Jan 2019, 06:08 pm »
I agree that the bass performance of the BDP-3 is better than the BDP-2, and said so:

"Bass was more articulate and defined."

I will also agree that the BDP-3's USB sound is much improved and this is the interface that I currently use. However, I have found that my choice of USB, AES, or S/PDIF, and the sound quality thereof, depends on the other equipment used with one of Bryston's digital players.
bryston BDP3 to BDA3 would you say USB is king? 

DarqueKnight

Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #10 on: 19 Jan 2019, 07:21 pm »
bryston BDP3 to BDA3 would you say USB is king?

I can't say. I haven't evaluated my BDP-3 with my BDA-3. In my system at work, which has a BDP-2 and a BDA-3, I use the USB interface.

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=142396.msg1519082#msg1519082

schmidtmike76

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 284
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #11 on: 20 Jan 2019, 01:16 am »
I can't say. I haven't evaluated my BDP-3 with my BDA-3. In my system at work, which has a BDP-2 and a BDA-3, I use the USB interface.

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=142396.msg1519082#msg1519082
thanks for the reply I’ll keep my eye open.

ARL67

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #12 on: 20 Jan 2019, 01:55 pm »
Killer review, thanks for sharing !
I plan to send in my BDP-2 for the BDP-3 upgrade.

FYI:  I have my BDP-2 ( with 2 x 1Tb SSD ) connected to a Devialet D200 via Shunyata Zitron Acanconda AES-EBU cable.  Speakers are Vandertseen Treo CT.   I have lots of vibration / isolation and power tweaks on all pieces, lots of acoustic panels in my room too.  I love the sonics of this setup, and love visual simplicity of my setup.  I can't wait to get even more sonic improvement from upgrading to a BDP-3 !

thanks - Andy

gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 351
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #13 on: 20 Jan 2019, 06:45 pm »
I agree that the bass performance of the BDP-3 is better than the BDP-2, and said so:

"Bass was more articulate and defined."

I will also agree that the BDP-3's USB sound is much improved and this is the interface that I currently use. However, I have found that my choice of USB, AES, or S/PDIF, and the sound quality thereof, depends on the other equipment used with one of Bryston's digital players.

I concur with everything you said.  8)

gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 351
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #14 on: 20 Jan 2019, 06:49 pm »
bryston BDP3 to BDA3 would you say USB is king?

I would say it depends upon the composition you are playing as well as your associated equipment. One thing for sure, with the BDP-3's numerous USB inputs, you have several options for tweaking.  8)

gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 351
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #15 on: 20 Jan 2019, 06:59 pm »
Killer review, thanks for sharing !
I plan to send in my BDP-2 for the BDP-3 upgrade.

FYI:  I have my BDP-2 ( with 2 x 1Tb SSD ) connected to a Devialet D200 via Shunyata Zitron Acanconda AES-EBU cable.  Speakers are Vandertseen Treo CT.   I have lots of vibration / isolation and power tweaks on all pieces, lots of acoustic panels in my room too.  I love the sonics of this setup, and love visual simplicity of my setup.  I can't wait to get even more sonic improvement from upgrading to a BDP-3 !

thanks - Andy

Be forewarned that if you get the wi-fi upgrade, you will loose the use of the front two USB inputs.

alexone

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1858
  • Anthony Bauer, Stan Rybb, John Stoneborough
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #16 on: 25 Jan 2019, 10:03 pm »
gbaby,

are you saying that if you choose the built-in wifi option both usb front inputs cannot be used anymore?? :scratch:

never heard about that. sounds weird.

al.

gbaby

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 351
Re: How My BDP-3 Sounds To Me - A Review
« Reply #17 on: 26 Jan 2019, 11:28 pm »
gbaby,

are you saying that if you choose the built-in wifi option both usb front inputs cannot be used anymore?? :scratch:

never heard about that. sounds weird.

al.

Yes. I did not know this until after I received it. Had I known it I'd just stuck with the bridge I was using.  :o