[nikon]

To those of you with BCD-1 and BDA-1 ...

Is there any difference in sound using the BCD-1 with and without the BDA-1

[drummermitchell]

Some do+some don't.For me I've been second guessing myself .
If there is a difference it's sooo close.Since I was totally impressed when I got the BCD-1,I seem to use the BCD-1(analog outs to the 26)but we have a mess of options with the BDA-1.I have the AES digital from BCD-1 going to the BDA-1,
going to the 26( I can switch at the turn of a knob)plus all the extra digital inputs for future use,perhaps the Squeezebox"Touch" when she comes out.

[Sasha]

Assuming that digital and analog circuitry are identical and of the same execution, the performance out of analog outputs of BCD-1 should be better than going digital into BDA-1 to do conversion simply because there will be less jitter what is the main factor (aside from the execution of circuitry) that impacts performance.
This is the reason why top players remain so far unmatched in performance when compared to solutions that involve external transports, be that another spinner, PC, whatever.
So far there is no digital source/transport that is of low enough jitter to make the difference inaudible, and so far there are no jitter “rejection” methods that could make the difference inaudible.
This assumes you have a system that is resolute enough, and you have good hearing.

[werd]

Assuming that digital and analog circuitry are identical and of the same execution, the performance out of analog outputs of BCD-1 should be better than going digital into BDA-1 to do conversion simply because there will be less jitter what is the main factor (aside from the execution of circuitry) that impacts performance.
This is the reason why top players remain so far unmatched in performance when compared to solutions that involve external transports, be that another spinner, PC, whatever.
So far there is no digital source/transport that is of low enough jitter to make the difference inaudible, and so far there are no jitter “rejection” methods that could make the difference inaudible.
This assumes you have a system that is resolute enough, and you have good hearing.

Hey Sasha, i can hear the jitter coming from your farts......  remember that one? That was epic 

[srb]

Assuming that digital and analog circuitry are identical and of the same execution, the performance out of analog outputs of BCD-1 should be better than going digital into BDA-1 to do conversion simply because there will be less jitter what is the main factor (aside from the execution of circuitry) that impacts performance.

My understanding is that the BDA-1 has dual Crystal CS-4398 DACs, one for each channel, where the BCD-1 has one stereo DAC.  So while a slight nod may go to the BDA-1 when comparing DAC circuitry alone, I agree that the internal I2S connection between the transport and the DAC in the BCD-1 still outweighs the indpendent DACs of the BDA-1.
 
And I believe that was also the feeling of the majority of users who own and listened to both.
 
Steve

[ian.ameline]

As you point out, the BDA-1 has a pair of stereo dacs -- this means the output section is fully balanced -- each channel has 2 dacs -- one "pulling", the other "pushing" -- canceling noise.

It also has the upsampling capability and the flexibility of having many inputs. Yes, there will be a little less jitter with the BCD-1, but the BDA-1 is very good at rejecting jitter, so I think the other advantages of the BDA-1 more than make up for that.

-- Ian.


 

[Dilbert]

As you point out, the BDA-1 has a pair of stereo dacs -- this means the output section is fully balanced -- each channel has 2 dacs -- one "pulling", the other "pushing" -- canceling noise.
-- Ian.

Not just cancellation of noise, but cancellation of other common modes, like even order distortion common to both polarities. It's the best strategy for an analogue topology, IMHO. 

[alexone]

to my ears audible differences are slightly.

al.