[Napalm]

No chance - no room in the box.

james

Make it deeper? Like a 4B or so?

I always hated that the BP6 is so short, I cannot sit the 4B on top of it. And sitting the BP6 on top of the 4B would obstruct cooling.

Nap. 

[JEaton]

Sounds like you started with an off-the-shelf sound card and either disabled the analog outs, chopped them off the card, or else didn't extend them to the backplane.  Weird.

[we417]

Hi!

I'm am interested in this product. Is it possible to have a convolver on the player? I'm using foobar2k and digital room correction (DRC) with my existing system. http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net.

Br

Arne Strom

[Napalm]

Hi!

I'm am interested in this product. Is it possible to have a convolver on the player? I'm using foobar2k and digital room correction (DRC) with my existing system. http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net.

Br

Arne Strom

What is the purpose of this kind of room corrections? Trying to simulate audition in an anechoic room? If successful, it would sound awful.... 

Nap.

[ted_b]

What is the purpose of this kind of room corrections? Trying to simulate audition in an anechoic room? If successful, it would sound awful.... 

Nap.

Why the confusion; why would you assume it would create an anechoic response?  That would be ridiculous.  Digital room correction, when done right, is another tool to use (some say sparingly, others rely heavily) to address both the time and space issues of room problems.  While simple EQ's can address the space issues (room nodes, etc) they often do so with brute force and try to do silly things like fill nulls, smear phase issues, etc.  The better room correction software (assuming enough horsepower) produces better filtering than that, and also tries to address the important time domain as well (decay times, phase, RT60, waterfall plot kind of stuff).  In an optimum WAF environment one would try their best to hold off on any digital EQ until they've exhausted all physical room treatments and speaker placement options....but sometimes those options are not presented.  Many multi-purpose problematic "living room with open kitchen access" listening rooms have improved dramatically through the use of digital room correction.  And no, NAP, they don't sound like anechoic chambers....that would suck (pun intended).

[Napalm]

I know how they sound.... my question is.... what is their ultimate goal? Trying to emulate what? If it's not an anechoic room, then what it is?

Nap. 

[ted_b]

I know how they sound.... my question is.... what is their ultimate goal? Trying to emulate what? If it's not an anechoic room, then what it is?

Nap. 

Nap, I think we should take this to another thread.

Back to the convolver; I would assume the BDP-1, or any hardware music player, would not include DRC functionality, but would leave that up to the software side, embedded in the music file (like replay gain, etc).  Insert a USB thumb drive with "fixed" music.

[Napalm]

Nap, I think we should take this to another thread.

Back to the convolver; I would assume the BDP-1, or any hardware music player, would not include DRC functionality, but would leave that up to the software side, embedded in the music file (like replay gain, etc).  Insert a USB thumb drive with "fixed" music.

This thread is fine  when you say "correct something" than you are correcting in respect to a reference. With an EQ the reference is a "flat frequency response" and you are "correcting" in order to get close to that reference. In case of "room corrections" like in time domain, first response correction, etc. what is the reference? 

As for the BDP-1, it's just a transport, I've never seen "room corrections" built in a CD player either.... but.... James has alluded that they are considering a hackable version where you can add your own software modules.... which would make this possible.... at your own risk of course....

Nap. 

[we417]

Hi!

I intended not to start an discussion on DRC, I only wanted to ad a nice functionality to the BDP-1.

Br


Arne

[JRace]

I know how they sound.... my question is.... what is their ultimate goal? Trying to emulate what? If it's not an anechoic room, then what it is?

Nap. 

You are not trying to emulate anything.
The purpose is to reduce room related frequency issues. Similar goal to room treatments.

[Napalm]

You are not trying to emulate anything.
The purpose is to reduce room related frequency issues. Similar goal to room treatments.

To what extent?

Room treatments also can go from gentle diffusers to a full anechoic setup.

Where do we stop?

Nap. 

[skunark]

Napalm consider it like the Bose noise cancellation headphones .. 

Don't most room-corrections solution use a single microphone?    So only the location of the microphone could sound perfect, you move an inch or two away then it's no longer perfect.   I would assume DRC is the last resort after room treatments and just before moving to a different house. 
 

[ted_b]

Don't most room-corrections solution use a single microphone?    So only the location of the microphone could sound perfect, you move an inch or two away then it's no longer perfect.   

No, the best use multiple locations or in the case of trinov use multiple microphones

[vegasdave]

Make it deeper? Like a 4B or so?

I always hated that the BP6 is so short, I cannot sit the 4B on top of it. And sitting the BP6 on top of the 4B would obstruct cooling.

Nap. 

  

[ricko01]

I am all for deconstructing things to optimized pieces, but the current Logitech Transporter,  SqueezeCenter software, iPeng/iPod Touch combo has, and continues, to serve me as an ideal player.  I have the Transporter connected to the BP26 as an analog source, and to the BDA-1 as a digital source.  Only had one night to try things out, so can't comment on the difference yet.

I wouldn't want anything less than that, and losing the integration between the list management and server functions is just a step backward.

Bingo!!!!!!!

I agree with you 100% and have the same setup... with my Transporter running over hardwired ethernet and the two wireless antenna removed off the back.

I navigate only with the supplied Transporter remote and its inbuilt screen. Thus I can play standard and HIREZ "disks" with no computer anywhere near my room.

I think having a PC screen/PC in my room so I can see cover art etc is all bling... and a hassle as PC interface is no more efficient than the standard remote.

Technically I could setup a touch screen display in my room and use a "USB over ethernet" device to connect to my remote PC (thus removing the PC from inside the room) but as noted, aside from the wow/bling factor... it would  not provide (to me at least)  any added benefit.

In relation to the BDP-1, it will have to be very very good to outperform the Transporter and the Transporter has a built in DAC. I have mentioned before on this forum that I think if Bryston is to increase the commercial success of the BDP-1 then a built in DAC would have been advantageous.

The Transporter and the BDP-1 are architecturally very different (ethernet based verses USB based) but in the end they both aspire to the same thing: the highest level of sound reproduction from a computer source.

[ted_b]

Bingo!!!!!!!

I agree with you 100% and have the same setup... with my Transporter running over hardwired ethernet and the two wireless antenna removed off the back.

I navigate only with the supplied Transporter remote and its inbuilt screen. Thus I can play standard and HIREZ "disks" with no computer anywhere near my room.

I think having a PC screen/PC in my room so I can see cover art etc is all bling... and a hassle as PC interface is no more efficient than the standard remote.

Technically I could setup a touch screen display in my room and use a "USB over ethernet" device to connect to my remote PC (thus removing the PC from inside the room) but as noted, aside from the wow/bling factor... it would  not provide (to me at least)  any added benefit.

In relation to the BDP-1, it will have to be very very good to outperform the Transporter and the Transporter has a built in DAC. I have mentioned before on this forum that I think if Bryston is to increase the commercial success of the BDP-1 then a built in DAC would have been advantageous.

The Transporter and the BDP-1 are architecturally very different (ethernet based verses USB based) but in the end they both aspire to the same thing: the highest level of sound reproduction from a computer source.

Rick,
You oughta use ipeng app and an ipod touch.  All the bling and wow, no computer needed.

[Napalm]

Rick,
You oughta use ipeng app and an ipod touch.  All the bling and wow, no computer needed.

How about using just the ipod and a pair of headphones. Much simpler and way cheaper.

Nap. 

[ricko01]

Rick,
You oughta use ipeng app and an ipod touch.  All the bling and wow, no computer needed.

three reasons (all of which mark me as a luddite):

1- all my CD's are "ripped" as full resoultion uncompressed WAV files (as a opposed to full resoultion compressed files) which means tags are lost as well as potentially album art and the ability to "mine" the tags (ie. select all blues tracks recorded in 1958 by musicians with one leg and play them.... wow )

2- I do not own nor plan to own any Apple products and the ipod screen size is too small to be effective

3- I honestly find the standard remote/display work very fast and efficiently given I have "indexed" my music via sub-directories on the PC drive and I can create "mood" playlists to fit my current mood (horny, pissed, happy, sad, depressed, drunk etc)

[werd]

Bingo!!!!!!!

I agree with you 100% and have the same setup... with my Transporter running over hardwired ethernet and the two wireless antenna removed off the back.

I navigate only with the supplied Transporter remote and its inbuilt screen. Thus I can play standard and HIREZ "disks" with no computer anywhere near my room.

I think having a PC screen/PC in my room so I can see cover art etc is all bling... and a hassle as PC interface is no more efficient than the standard remote.

Technically I could setup a touch screen display in my room and use a "USB over ethernet" device to connect to my remote PC (thus removing the PC from inside the room) but as noted, aside from the wow/bling factor... it would  not provide (to me at least)  any added benefit.

In relation to the BDP-1, it will have to be very very good to outperform the Transporter and the Transporter has a built in DAC. I have mentioned before on this forum that I think if Bryston is to increase the commercial success of the BDP-1 then a built in DAC would have been advantageous.

The Transporter and the BDP-1 are architecturally very different (ethernet based verses USB based) but in the end they both aspire to the same thing: the highest level of sound reproduction from a computer source.

Yes but you are comparing Logitech vs Bryston in the field of audio playback.... The Bryston will have its signature sound. Logitech hasnt done anything in the field of audio thats really noteworthy other than these recent computer adapters. We will have to see but i bet the Bryston will beat hands down sonically.

[KeithA]

three reasons (all of which mark me as a luddite):

1- all my CD's are "ripped" as full resoultion uncompressed WAV files (as a opposed to full resoultion compressed files) which means tags are lost as well as potentially album art and the ability to "mine" the tags (ie. select all blues tracks recorded in 1958 by musicians with one leg and play them.... wow )

2- I do not own nor plan to own any Apple products and the ipod screen size is too small to be effective

3- I honestly find the standard remote/display work very fast and efficiently given I have "indexed" my music via sub-directories on the PC drive and I can create "mood" playlists to fit my current mood (horny, pissed, happy, sad, depressed, drunk etc)

I have a Transporter that is fed digitally to my BDA-1. I have never used the Transporter remote nor the front panel (including the tactile feedback control). The use of the Duet controller as a remote for the Transporter makes it the perfect combination.

I own a 27" iMac and an iPad though, but I'm probably still a proud luddite 

Keith