[Sasha]

Sasha-

     I feel like there is a lot to respond to.  Let me start with, I understand your perspective.  In a perfect world, without limitations, budgets, or constraints a "holds no bars" "best-of-the-best" comparison would be valid.  I am sure I don't need to tell you that this world isn't perfect.  I tested the units the way that I would be using it, therefore making it the perfect test for my situation.  Does that mean that I fully explored the depths of both units abilities in the time spent I with them?  Clearly not.  But what I did get was what I needed to get, the differences they had via the two possible connections for my setup.
     In terms of coloration, well the same thing goes.  I have yet to find a setup, for under 25K that even approaches the levels of neutrality that you are speaking of.  No system can recreate what a live session is like.  Every electronic device will either add something or take something away, even if it is minute.  So I am confused as to why something might be "deeply wrong" with a system that the user loves, but might love even more with a change in one direction?  The fact that you state that you "would not base [your] purchase on the fact that USB on Benchmark 'sounds better'" given the restrictions of the budget and the constraints of the existing components, means that you are either so rich that these things don't effect you, or that you have some miracle fix that would make these real issues disappear.
     I never said that the Benchmark eliminated all jitter, what I said was that in our experience the Benchmark sounded similar on both inputs.  You might think it is crap via USB, and that is perfectly fine.  Two thirds of us thought it sounded better then the Bryston via USB.  Each opinion is valid.  That is where tests won't help, the experience of each unit is subjective to the listener.  Some love McIntosh, some don't.  Some love Ayre, some don't.  Some love NuForce, some don't.  But, when you write things like, "there is more validity in simply looking at execution of the two units", it is clear that the actual experience of the unit is less important to you the the spec sheets are.
     Once again, I repeat that I have a Mac Mini, not a disc transport, so using a mac for the test is the best choice for me to get a real comparison given my specific constraints.  Which is to say, all of the other inputs except for the USB and Optical could fall off both units and it wouldn't make a difference in my setup.  AES might change the music into auditory gold, but that wouldn't make it worth one more cent to me since, I cant use it.  So, why is a test I made for my specific needs, using the specific connections, using the specific files, using the specific gear, invalid?

-Wes

I am not disputing your opinion, whatever makes you happy, it is your money and you know what you are looking for and what you are willing to spend.
I am just pointing out to something that I consider an unfair, to say at least, review/comparison of two devices that are in fact much more different than alike.
I am not saying DAC-1 is undisputable champion of digital conversion, far from it, but in all fairness it is much better machine than DAC1.
And I am also expressing my opinion of different interfaces/transports, which is based on my experience. My experience tells me to stay away from anything but the AES-EBU, BNC or Coax inputs on BDA-1 or any other DAC I tried.
And I am not terribly rich, you do not need a lot of money to get decent source, if you can afford BDA-1 you certainly could invest in good PC to act as your transport.
In regard to execution and judgment passed, I did not decide to go with BDA-1 based on specifications. I actually compared it to much more expensive units, ranging from 4 – 12K. In the end I sold my 12K unit. Also, what I heard was in line what measurements said. This is yet another reason I disagree with placing BDA-1 in the same group with DAC1.
From such perspective I call conclusions that lead toward placement in the same group invalid. Not your choice, not your taste in music, but such conclusion.

Peace? 

[Sasha]

Hi Guys,

My take on this is that your both right.

Sasha is saying that if you limit the DAC to a source or connection that is not representative of the state of the art then the true performance level of DAC 'A' vs DAC 'B' would be compromised.

Wes is saying I have to judge the performance on the sources I currently have available to me and the system has to work as best it can given those sources.

Think of it like listening to a 192/24 bit feed into the DAC vs listening to and MP3 digital feed - the 192/24 is a state of the art feed and the performance level of the DAC would be optimized.  The performance level between DAC 'A' and DAC 'B' could then be legitimately assessed.

The MP3 on the other hand would severely limit the ultimate performance level of the DAC due to the limited quality of the source. But if MP3 is all you have to listen too then you have to make a choice based on that reality.

The problem is that the poor source may in fact limit the listeners ability to tell which DAC's performance is ultimately the best.  But 'best' has a context depending on the rest of the system utilized.

My $00.02

james

Yes, that is what I am saying.
I obviously have a problem of coming too strong, but that is another subject.   
Good thing we have James. 

[werd]

u called Bryston's dac crap(via usb).... i guess u came on too strong.

[NewBuyer]

...As far as “best” protocol/transport goes, it is the one with lowest jitter (assuming proper execution of each), which is AES3 standard IEC 60958 Type I – 3 conductors, 110-ohm, XLR terminated...

Interestingly, we hear from some very well respected engineers that the AES/EBU interface is actually worse than single-conductor S/PDIF.  For instance, Sean Adams at Logitech/SlimDevices and Pat at Analog Research Technology (both lead engineers) are each on record stating this.

I think it is more about the output stages of DACs that we are mostly hearing as differences, and not the vanishingly tiny differences (if any) in internal jitter audibility between these modern units.  Modern ic opamps are much better than they once used to be.  For instance the newer LM4562's used in the DAC1 USB (and also now used throughout the analog stage of the upgraded new DAC1 PRE) are definitely no slouch, that's for sure!  The discrete stages in the Bryston are also fantastic.

A DAC should "perform" exactly the same regardless of what you feed it - it should be able to handle and faithfully reproduce what it receives.  If you give it low-quality MP3, it should reproduce the sound of low-quality MP3.  Feed it good hi-res signal, it should reproduce that signal in all its fidelity with no losses.  Garbage-in, garbage-out, etc.  Voicing of the equipment also clearly adds to the character, as another contributing element.

There are too many variables in a particular system and installation to try to control and worry about them all, and for that matter, not all the variables are well understood or even known.  The best approach IMO is to try different gear in your own real-world system and see what, to you, appears to work best in your setup.  "Best" is ideally about convenience, features, subjectively perceived sonic advantages, compatibility, longevity, warranty, etc.  It is NOT about worrying how different pieces would sound in some elusive hypothetical "optimal" system that nobody actually has, or possibly does not even exist.

For instance, I have some high-horse audio acquaintances that will simply refuse to listen to a system that contains any piece not meeting their snobby approval of its measurements or design.  Boy, are they ever missing a lot!  Most interestingly, some pieces that such people consider "inferior" actually sound better than their snobby gear.  But will they ever admit or recognize this?  No way!  They are too busy worrying about how they think things should be, rather than how they actually are. 

[werd]

Wow that sounds familiar ..... good post

[Sasha]

...As far as “best” protocol/transport goes, it is the one with lowest jitter (assuming proper execution of each), which is AES3 standard IEC 60958 Type I – 3 conductors, 110-ohm, XLR terminated...

Interestingly, we hear from some very well respected engineers that the AES/EBU interface is actually worse than single-conductor S/PDIF.  For instance, Sean Adams at Logitech/SlimDevices and Pat at Analog Research Technology (both lead engineers) are each on record stating this.

I think it is more about the output stages of DACs that we are mostly hearing as differences, and not the vanishingly tiny differences (if any) in internal jitter audibility between these modern units.  Modern ic opamps are much better than they once used to be.  For instance the newer LM4562's used in the DAC1 USB (and also now used throughout the analog stage of the upgraded new DAC1 PRE) are definitely no slouch, that's for sure!  The discrete stages in the Bryston are also fantastic.

A DAC should "perform" exactly the same regardless of what you feed it - it should be able to handle and faithfully reproduce what it receives.  If you give it low-quality MP3, it should reproduce the sound of low-quality MP3.  Feed it good hi-res signal, it should reproduce that signal in all its fidelity with no losses.  Garbage-in, garbage-out, etc.  Voicing of the equipment also clearly adds to the character, as another contributing element.

There are too many variables in a particular system and installation to try to control and worry about them all, and for that matter, not all the variables are well understood or even known.  The best approach IMO is to try different gear in your own real-world system and see what, to you, appears to work best in your setup.  "Best" is ideally about convenience, features, subjectively perceived sonic advantages, compatibility, longevity, warranty, etc.  It is NOT about worrying how different pieces would sound in some elusive hypothetical "optimal" system that nobody actually has, or possibly does not even exist.

For instance, I have some high-horse audio acquaintances that will simply refuse to listen to a system that contains any piece not meeting their snobby approval of its measurements or design.  Boy, are they ever missing a lot!  Most interestingly, some pieces that such people consider "inferior" actually sound better than their snobby gear.  But will they ever admit or recognize this?  No way!  They are too busy worrying about how they think things should be, rather than how they actually are. 

Boy, you really cannot comprehend that someone can hear the difference and make correlation between measurements and subjective performance?
Speaking of silly statements from these “engineers”, it is nothing more than marketing BS. The community of professional users and engineers certainly knows better.
Logitech/SlimDevices? Give me a break, that is utter junk. I had squeezebox, its performance is horrible, and corresponds exactly to what measurements show, Toslink being especially poor.
“A DAC should "perform" exactly the same regardless of what you feed it” – very wrong.
As much as it should show the difference between MP3, 16/44.1, 24/96/192, so it should when fed with signal of various jitter.
There is absolute and undeniable correlation between the subjective quality of sound and jitter measurements.
Denying it means only two things, you did not or could not hear the difference, for whatever reason, be that coloration imparted by components, or inability to hear.

[wkatzir]

Sasha-

     This is after all, audio equipment, which is our passion, and I am glad that you are here to give me a chance to debate my views.  We obviously saw some things alike, since after all, we both enjoy the Bryston unit!

-Wes

[Watson]

Sasha, you keep referring to measurements of various products. Can you provide some links that verify your claims? I'm particularly interested in measurements of the BDA-1.

[Panelman]

Sasha,

why should we not expect a dac to be able to remove various levels of jitter with the same degree of success?  Just because USB may have higher levels of jitter than SPDIF we should still expect the same level of sound quality from the dac. Not all jitter reduction methods meet this goal but it should still be expected. Your earlier comment about the Benchmark "doing" something to the sound  because the output sounds the same from all inputs is correct, what the Benchmark is doing is removing the source induced jitter from all inputs to a level that is inaudible and is the same for all inputs because the same jitter removal process is used regardless of the source.  I also have a Squeezebox and agree that its output matches its measurements. I have a Benchmark Dac 1 and regardless of the inputs, USB from Macbook Pro, old Rotel cdp, Squeezebox or optical it sounds the same which is supported by all documented measurements which are easy to find in multiple locations.

Whether the Benchmark or the Bryston sounds better is not for me to say but your insistence that the Benchmark does not handle jitter correctly or sufficiently for all inputs is factually wrong and has been shown through multiple validated tests.  Whatever difference the original poster heard between the Bryston and the Benchmark is NOT related to how the Benchmark handles jitter. We all have our opinions and they are valid but you might try backing your emphatic statements with some data.

[werd]

I notice Chilest hasnt been around since he started this thread back in Sept., wander what dac he bought...lol

[Moon Doggy]

IMO the two are so far apart that comparison is meaningless.
Simple look at execution and measurements that recently became available will show that BDA-1 is significantly better piece.

Can you really be surprised that you get such a reaction with extreme statements such as this one and the following quote? These two dacs are probably the best available and are very close performance wise in that price range. Yes the Bryston is slightly better than the Benchmark IMO. But so is the Cambridge 840C CD player when used as a DAC. And its not just about jitter specs as far as sounding "analog".

And I am not terribly rich, you do not need a lot of money to get decent source, if you can afford BDA-1 you certainly could invest in good PC to act as your transport.
In the end I sold my 12K unit.

?????? 12K source... you are rich man. OK...I'm nibbling at the bait but I'm not biting. 

The important point is that these three units have finally made the CD as listenable (or better IMO) as the TT as a Source. The engineers at these fine companies deserve credit. 

[Sasha]

Sasha, you keep referring to measurements of various products. Can you provide some links that verify your claims? I'm particularly interested in measurements of the BDA-1.

Sorry I did not answer before, I do not know of published measurements for BDA-1, only for CD player, I was referring to measurements done by a guy I had discussions with on BDA-1.
I do not know how much trust one can have in such measurements, but he is smart guy.

[Sasha]

IMO the two are so far apart that comparison is meaningless.
Simple look at execution and measurements that recently became available will show that BDA-1 is significantly better piece.

Can you really be surprised that you get such a reaction with extreme statements such as this one and the following quote? These two dacs are probably the best available and are very close performance wise in that price range. Yes the Bryston is slightly better than the Benchmark IMO. But so is the Cambridge 840C CD player when used as a DAC. And its not just about jitter specs as far as sounding "analog".

And I am not terribly rich, you do not need a lot of money to get decent source, if you can afford BDA-1 you certainly could invest in good PC to act as your transport.
In the end I sold my 12K unit.

?????? 12K source... you are rich man. OK...I'm nibbling at the bait but I'm not biting. 

The important point is that these three units have finally made the CD as listenable (or better IMO) as the TT as a Source. The engineers at these fine companies deserve credit. 

Well, 12K list, I am not saying I paid 12K, so no, I am not that rich 

[Sasha]

Sasha,

why should we not expect a dac to be able to remove various levels of jitter with the same degree of success?  Just because USB may have higher levels of jitter than SPDIF we should still expect the same level of sound quality from the dac. Not all jitter reduction methods meet this goal but it should still be expected. Your earlier comment about the Benchmark "doing" something to the sound  because the output sounds the same from all inputs is correct, what the Benchmark is doing is removing the source induced jitter from all inputs to a level that is inaudible and is the same for all inputs because the same jitter removal process is used regardless of the source.  I also have a Squeezebox and agree that its output matches its measurements. I have a Benchmark Dac 1 and regardless of the inputs, USB from Macbook Pro, old Rotel cdp, Squeezebox or optical it sounds the same which is supported by all documented measurements which are easy to find in multiple locations.

Whether the Benchmark or the Bryston sounds better is not for me to say but your insistence that the Benchmark does not handle jitter correctly or sufficiently for all inputs is factually wrong and has been shown through multiple validated tests.  Whatever difference the original poster heard between the Bryston and the Benchmark is NOT related to how the Benchmark handles jitter. We all have our opinions and they are valid but you might try backing your emphatic statements with some data.

You can expect DAC to remove various levels of jitter to some degree, but not to eliminate it.
The problem is that Benchmark made claims that are bordering with science fiction, complete removal of jitter below audible threshold, what is the reason they claim all the sources and all the inputs sound the same.
This is as far as I am concerned marketing BS.
It is not bad DAC at all, do not get me wrong, but please, do not insult my intelligence by making such statements.
First of all, it is not true it all sounds the same on DAC1, it sounds similar, and the reason for it is colorations, through their filtering they did nothing else but change spectra, jitter became imbedded in signal. They in fact harmed the signal, DAC1 does not speak truth as much as BDA-1.
DAC1 may sound pleasing, again jitter can be manifested in many ways, but the fact remains that what they did was not complete removal of jitter.

[werd]

I still think Sasha u dont have a clue what jitter sounds like, and u just keep talkin out your ass

[denjo]

Logitech/SlimDevices? Give me a break, that is utter junk. I had squeezebox, its performance is horrible, and corresponds exactly to what measurements show, Toslink being especially poor.

The SB3 is an innovative product that has provided me hours of musical enjoyment! IMHO, to label it as "utter junk" is quite a bold and sweeping statement. I own the Quad 77 CDP and have auditioned quite expensive CDPs, including the Rega Apollo, and still prefer my stock SB3 (with Paul Hynes' PSU) any time, any day! While measurements can be important, I think it is your ears that should be the final arbiter of whether something sounds good and will satisfy you in the long run!

[James Tanner]

Hi Folks,

Just a quick comment:

Jitter coming in can be reduced but not eliminated.

So if you have two sources -- one with 'high jitter' and one with 'low jitter' -- the DAC can 'reduce' the jitter coming in but the reduction (depending on how it is implemented) is a reduction of jitter at the same percentage. So lets say the specific DAC reduces the jitter from the source by 50% - that 50% is the same reduction for the high jitter source and the low jitter source.

james

[Watson]

Hi Folks,

Just a quick comment:

Jitter coming in can be reduced but not eliminated.

So if you have two sources -- one with 'high jitter' and one with 'low jitter' -- the DAC can 'reduce' the jitter coming in but the reduction (depending on how it is implemented) is a reduction of jitter at the same percentage. So lets say the specific DAC reduces the jitter from the source by 50% - that 50% is the same reduction for the high jitter source and the low jitter source.

james

I think people are wondering about two orthogonal issues:

1. the percentage reduction in jitter in each of the two products

2. whether the USB code Benchmark licensed is more effective at lowering jitter than the Bryston implementation.

[fly_fish_nz]

Thanks James.  I was wondering about precisely that issue, i.e., whether implementations sometimes allow for a percentage reduction and see your point.  On the other hand, if there is 99.5% reduction, the differences between residuals from different sources may be inconsequential.

[James Tanner]

Thanks James.  I was wondering about precisely that issue, i.e., whether implementations sometimes allow for a percentage reduction and see your point.  On the other hand, if there is 99.5% reduction, the differences between residuals from different sources may be inconsequential.

I am not an engineer and it might be great to get a qualified opinion on this but I believe the percentage of reduction is no where near high percentages. The lower the source jitter the better.

james