[ricko01]

This is what I currently do/have for my Transporter.

1- I have a USB RAID 5 , 4 drive LaCie unit connect to a PC.

2- I have a single drive "mobile" USB drive connected to the same PC

3- The transporter gets its files from disk drive in (2)

4- The disk drive in (1) is turned off

5- when I get new music, I rip it to my local drive , turn on the RAID unit in (1) and then copy it to both (1) and (2)

6- I then turn off (1)

This way I have a complete backup. If (2) fails, I buy another and copy from (1) to  new (2)

If (1) has an issue, I do a hot swap and it will rebuild the drive contents automatically.

Note that when I got (1) I also purchase additional hot swap drives.

For use with the BDP-1, the steps are basically the same but (2) is connected to the BDP-1 most of the time. When you get new music, unplug (2), stick it back into the PC, rip/copy, then replug into BDP-1

[ricko01]

Why are you so hung up on RAID?  I run RAID 5 at work, but only because I can't afford even one hour of downtime.
 
RAID isn't a backup.  At home, I run nightly scheduled incremental backups to a single NAS drive, and should my music drive fail, I might be down an hour or two.  No big deal.  Much simpler and less energy.
 
Steve

its simple..... the USB drive is connected directly to the BDP-1.................. so you cant do an incremental!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

if the BDP-1 was a fully fledged OS then backups are an option...

secondly, RAID units are simple for non-technical people..... if you are a computer wizz then anything is possible.

[srb]

its simple..... the USB drive is connected directly to the BDP-1

And therein lies the inherent design flaw of the BDP-1.  It should be connected to a network drive via Ethernet.  And forget about schlepping a USB drive between it and a computer.
 
Steve

[James Tanner]

Thanks folks - All good feedback and certainly areas we can look at as we move forward with the BDP-1.

Not to be to argumentative but does anyone care how the BDP-1 sounds

james

[srb]

Not to be arguementative but does anyone care how the BDP-1 sounds

I think in so many words you have told us that it should outperform any digital file player transport currently on the market.  Accepting that, you are getting suggestions and feedback on the other (but no less important) half of the puzzle - usability and user interface.
 
Steve

[skunark]

Raid 1 would be total overkill for the BDP-1, perhaps raid0 or raid5 if you had a library larger than 2TB in size and really needed that large drive space.   

As I would prefer a reliable network solution that doesn't stream the content, I'm okay with cloning a drive for the BDP-1 to use.   That drive would not be the main drive for music nor should it be considered a backup drive.  It's mostly an additional, but necessary expense until Bryston decides to release the network solution

As I've stated in other threads about the BDP-1 is all in the user interface and I would argue that is more important than the fidelity of the unit but it clearly needs to be a top performer for that price and the extra hoops you have to go through to set it up.   

How many folks in this forum really knows how to use "rsync" or program like it  that will copy/clone a music directory on a regular schedule?     It does take several hours to copy several hundred gigabytes of data and I can just see several folks struggling with that.

[James Tanner]

I think in so many words you have told us that it should outperform any digital file player transport currently on the market.  Accepting that, you are getting suggestions and feedback on the other (but no less important) half of the puzzle - usability and user interface.
 
Steve

Hi Steve - agreed - but I get the impression from some of the comments that introducing our CD Player and our DAC was a waste of time given that most products have built in DAC's and everyone knows that today you get a free CD player when you buy a fridge.

I guess my point is that if I was not trying to better the sound performance level first and foremost in some meaningful way --  especially with high resolution material -- I would not have taken this project on.

[VOLKS]

Thanks folks - All good feedback and certainly areas we can look at as we move forward with the BDP-1.

Not to be to argumentative but does anyone care how the BDP-1 sounds

james

I care how it sounds................however i despise the fact that there is no Dac built in and i have to fork over 2K for the BDP-1 and then another 2K for BDA-1(Assuming i use/want the BDA-1 with it)...........to expensive at the moment and until the download format is settled/stable(will it ever be?).I will stick with what i got and not be an early adaptor on the BDP-1.

[mcullinan]

I think in so many words you have told us that it should outperform any digital file player transport currently on the market.  Accepting that, you are getting suggestions and feedback on the other (but no less important) half of the puzzle - usability and user interface.
 
Steve

+1

[whanafi]

Hi Steve - agreed - but I get the impression from some of the comments that introducing our CD Player and our DAC was a waste of time given that most products have built in DAC's and everyone knows that today you get a free CD player when you buy a fridge.

I guess my point is that if I was not trying to better the sound performance level first and foremost in some meaningful way --  especially with high resolution material -- I would not have taken this project on.

Ah, but there is the difference.  I fully agree that separating the transport and DAC made sense because there was an identifiable issue with the mechanical transfer of data from the CD to the DAC and then high quality analog output.

Now we are talking about starting from a digital source, so the only value of the BDP-1 is to take that digital file and pass it to the DAC.  The user interface, the ability to connect to remote data sources to avoid local storage, and the ability to manage play lists and multi-room setups becomes key.

The Slim Devices ecology - players, server side software, and open source model does all that very well.  I don't really care that Logitech bought the company from a support point of view because I don't need support.  The player works physically, and the community drives the software side.

Having both the Transporter and the BDA-1, I can say that the sound difference is barely noticeable when using the Transporter's analog outputs, and of course non-existent if using the digital outputs.

Those of us currently using mature systems can't see the value in the BDP-1 because it doesn't bring the full chain for playing digital files.

Those new to the idea of digital music and/or computers may appreciate the BDP-1.  I just doubt they will be up for the fact that the whole concept requires locally attached storage and a third party software solution to control the player. 

My collection sits where it belongs on a NAS, and is accessed across the network.  I have no desire to complicate my life by requiring that I clone parts of my library to a physical USB device so that it can be attached to the BDP-1.

[James Tanner]

Ok I guess we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.  So far we have had termendous demand from our distributors and dealers and high resolution record companies.  It will certainly be an interesting few months going forward.

james

[Napalm]

Not to be to argumentative but does anyone care how the BDP-1 sounds

Sure we do. Any preliminary mesurments on jitter when it's used with the BDA-1?

Nap.

[Napalm]

[...]Those new to the idea of digital music and/or computers may appreciate the BDP-1.[...]

I'd say that on the contrary it's those that have spent way too much time with computers that will appreciate the BDP-1 (when used with the BR-2).

Nap.

[konut]

Not to be to argumentative but does anyone care how the BDP-1 sounds

james

Being Bryston, I just assumed it would better equivalent units up to 3 times the price point, and beyond. I'm pretty sure you won't disappoint.

[drummermitchell]

For me all the tech ,doesn't mean a thing to me.
It is how she sounds,if she don't sound great , why bother.
I guess being a  musician,it's all about the sound,the end result for me.
A component can have a ll kinds of thinga majigs in there which techy's love to see and analyse.
Just like certain technical players I have see(heard)they have all the parts,but can they play music,NOT.
  :thumb:for her sound.

[Anonamemouse]

Thanks folks - All good feedback and certainly areas we can look at as we move forward with the BDP-1.

And you already have, the/my suggestion of adding a basic 2 line display has actually happened! I *DO* think though, to maximize the compatibility with other (non Bryston) equipment, that all possible sorts of connections should be present, like an optical one... So many DAC's and digital amplifiers have optical entrances, I truly believe that not maximizing that will make you miss out on a considerable part of the market.

Not to be to argumentative but does anyone care how the BDP-1 sounds

Not really. We all know the sound quality standard of Bryston. It's nothing to worry about at all.

[srb]

I *DO* think though, to maximize the compatibility with other (non Bryston) equipment, that all possible sorts of connections should be present, like an optical one... So many DAC's and digital amplifiers have optical entrances, I truly believe that not maximizing that will make you miss out on a considerable part of the market.

I am going to disagree with that.  James has already taken a suggestion to add an S/PDIF coaxial output to acommodate additional DACs that do not have an AES/EBU input.
 
You would be hard pressed to find digital amplifiers or DACs that have S/PDIF inputs that do not have a coaxial input.  Because an optical input adds another layer of buffering on both the transmitting and receiving ends of the S/PDIF interface, the coaxial input is preferred when the best S/PDIF signal quality is the goal.
 
Steve

[sfraser]

Raid 1 would be total overkill for the BDP-1, perhaps raid0 or raid5 if you had a library larger than 2TB in size and really needed that large drive space.   

As I would prefer a reliable network solution that doesn't stream the content, I'm okay with cloning a drive for the BDP-1 to use.   That drive would not be the main drive for music nor should it be considered a backup drive.  It's mostly an additional, but necessary expense until Bryston decides to release the network solution

As I've stated in other threads about the BDP-1 is all in the user interface and I would argue that is more important than the fidelity of the unit but it clearly needs to be a top performer for that price and the extra hoops you have to go through to set it up.   

How many folks in this forum really knows how to use "rsync" or program like it  that will copy/clone a music directory on a regular schedule?     It does take several hours to copy several hundred gigabytes of data and I can just see several folks struggling with that.

Yep, I know what rsync is, I use it several times a week. My backups consist of using rsync to back up my files systems to my neighbor's host via 300' of direct buried Cat 5E ethernet cable we have between our house's. Assuming my wife is not to aggressive with the garden hoe it works just fine. He backs his file systems on my host as well. Off site backups...can't beat it!

[sfraser]

Ok I guess we will just have to wait and see how it plays out.  So far we have had termendous demand from our distributors and dealers and high resolution record companies.  It will certainly be an interesting few months going forward.

james

James, I am sure I can speak on behalf of everyone else on this forum, in that we all really want you to be successful with the introduction of  BDP-1 . That's why you are getting all the feed back. : ) I realize alot of what we are asking is focused around networking and back end music storage, which may not be your prime focus or Bryston's forte'. But I am sure the fine Engineers you have working up the line on HWY 7 have the capability to come up with great solution to "finish" the product after you gauge the initial public reaction/sales to the BDP-1.

P.S. are you planning on doing any comparison testing with products such as the logitech(slimdevices) Touch/ Transporter? Or will you wait and let the trade rags do that? My offer is still open to ship you up a pint size squeezeserver, if you can wrangle up a Touch player.

Cheers,

Scott

[James Tanner]

^^^^^^^

Hi Scott,

I have not played with the 'squeezer' yet but will shortly.  As you say I was not looking at this product as a squeezebox type product but more like a companion piece for our BDA-1 DAC.

I have really been concentrating on comparing the sound on the different prototypes – trying switching supplies vs linear supplies, different modifications to the soundcard, different versions of software, compared to CD players etc. Soundcards I have tried so far in my three different computer setups (2-Windows – 1 Mac) are the M-Audio soundcard , the Lynx soundcard, the REM soundcard the ESI@ soundcard, and the Mac Pro etc. 

Next I want to do BNC vs AES-EBU and work with our web-browser interface on my itouch and ipad as well as my Windows based computers. What it looks like now is that we will be able to allow access to the Bryston web-browser on the BDP-1 through multiple platforms – Mac, Windows etc. or any device that allows for a web interface.

james