[sfraser]

Yes,, as the OP on this thread, when I get my BDP-1 I will able to compare both via my BDA-1... using  the same cabling.

I will also test  SPDIF BNC verses AES/EBU...

It would also be interesting if you compare the two using the transporter DAC, i
I believe the transporter has digital inputs, and the DAC chip was the latest and greatest when it was released in 06/07 .

Cheers and have fun!

[konut]

It would also be interesting if you compare the two using the transporter DAC, i
I believe the transporter has digital inputs, and the DAC chip was the latest and greatest when it was released in 06/07 .

Cheers and have fun!

I considered the Transporter when it was first released but felt that an opamp based output section was a weak point. As James Tanner has repeatedly said, it is more important how the analog output and ground planes are implimented more than the actual percieved pedigree of DAC chip used. From the reviews I have seen of both units, and my experience with the BDA-1, my opinion has not changed. FWIW, the Red Wine modded SB3 works well with the BDA-1. I would expect, though, that the BDP-1 would be an improvement, and should be at over twice the cost.   

[ricko01]

I considered the Transporter when it was first released but felt that an opamp based output section was a weak point. As James Tanner has repeatedly said, it is more important how the analog output and ground planes are implimented more than the actual percieved pedigree of DAC chip used. From the reviews I have seen of both units, and my experience with the BDA-1, my opinion has not changed. FWIW, the Red Wine modded SB3 works well with the BDA-1. I would expect, though, that the BDP-1 would be an improvement, and should be at over twice the cost.

The interesting comparison is when you use the Transporter as a transport into a DAC (and a BDP-1 into the same DAC).

Then we are discussing the merits of just the decoding engines. The interesting things are:

1- They both cost about the same (~2k)

2- The transporter has custom firmware whereas the BDP-1 uses a pre-existing Operating system and sound card (although breathed on with the Bryston magic)

3- The transporter is TCP/IP based whereas the BDP-1 is USB based

4- The transporter has a boat load of facilities whereas the BDP-1 is very focused

So completely different ways of achieving the same ends.

Peter

[konut]

Not exactly the same ends really. The BDP-1 can be used as a more 'stand alone' product in that it incoporates an internal computer. They both offer the versatility of using an external DAC, but the Transporter builds in one who's analog section is less than ideal making it 'extra baggage' so to speak. While Slimserver makes the Transporter a versitile digital tool that one can incoporate add-ons and plug-ins to, the BDP-1 decodes higher resolution files. From a strictly SQ standpoint, the BDP-1 has a distinct edge, while the Transporter is more versitile. What Frank Van Alstine terms "bells and whistles".