[Sasha]

From a "purity" perspective, the BDP-1  has it all over the Transporter.

The Transporter has all sorts of stuff that I never use (interet radio, digital inputs, analogue curcuits, word clock in etc)... so if you buy into the "less is more" .. the  BDP-1  should have a better change to get the sound right.

And given I have  a BP26 and BDP-1 already and digital music is my main source (I do spin vinyl as well but not as much)... then the BDP-1 will provide more of the Bryston "house" sound that we all love.
 
So... I just talked myself into the BDP-1... I will just need to buy some extra powerful glasses so I can see the display (and a  Bryston remote).

I believe from performance perspective you made the right choice, your logic is valid and resembles mine, with exception that IMO there are no benefits to being all Bryston, rather having well engineered and built product that does what you need and no more.
The only thing I can suggest before committing is to try to get some measurements, if there are any available.

[ricko01]

James,

Can you confirm I need the Bryston BR2 Hand-Held Remote to operate the BDP-1?

Thanks

[Phil A]

So... I just talked myself into the BDP-1... I will just need to buy some extra powerful glasses so I can see the display (and a  Bryston remote).

Would this work in lieu of glasses?  http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=usb+powered+display&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivs&resnum=3&biw=1920&bih=1038&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=2818710176600179111&ei=r_EDTZ7cIIiq8Abd16W9DA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CG4Q8wIwAA#ps-sellers

[ricko01]

Given the remote is $375... can anyone recommend an handheld device/netbook for around the same price to use with the BDP-1?

Thanks,

Peter

[ricko01]

Would this work in lieu of glasses?  http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=usb+powered+display&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivs&resnum=3&biw=1920&bih=1038&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=2818710176600179111&ei=r_EDTZ7cIIiq8Abd16W9DA&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CG4Q8wIwAA#ps-sellers

Just saw your reply AFTER i posted mine.... looks like what I need.

hmmm... looks like it is tethered by a cable...

But I could go usb over ethernet..... so its possibl

Thanks

[James Tanner]

James,

Can you confirm I need the Bryston BR2 Hand-Held Remote to operate the BDP-1?

Thanks

Hi Rick,

No you can use an iTouch, iPhone or Laptop as well as iPod etc. to interface with the BDP-1.

james

[ricko01]

Hi Rick,

No you can use an iTouch, iPhone or Laptop as well as iPod etc. to interface with the BDP-1.

james

Sure...  I dont have any apple products. and a laptop is too bulky.. so a "look alike" IPAD tablet would be the best.

[James Tanner]

Sure...  I dont have any apple products. and a laptop is too bulky.. so a "look alike" IPOD tablet would be the best.

I have not tried the tablets but I assume they would work well.

james

[ricko01]

I have not tried the tablets but I assume they would work well.

james

http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/top-10-best-tablet-pc-ipad-alternatives-690596

[kingdeezie]

Sure...  I dont have any apple products. and a laptop is too bulky.. so a "look alike" IPAD tablet would be the best.

Not to start a flame war, or get into the whole Apple versus PC mess, but you could look at the new Macbook Airs.

They are anything but bulky, and have a full sized laptop keyboard,full OSX, and SSD hard drive which makes the computer fly. I just got back from the Apple Store and got one for my wife, its pretty sweet.

I think Dell has an alternative too, the "Adamo," I think its called; if you are a PC fan.

Either way these new ultra portable laptops would probably make an excellent music controller since you can also do multi task work and the like while listening to music.

[James Tanner]

Not to start a flame war, or get into the whole Apple versus PC mess, but you could look at the new Macbook Airs.

They are anything but bulky, and have a full sized laptop keyboard,full OSX, and SSD hard drive which makes the computer fly. I just got back from the Apple Store and got one for my wife, its pretty sweet.

I think Dell has an alternative too, the "Adamo," I think its called; if you are a PC fan.

Either way these new ultra portable laptops would probably make an excellent music controller since you can also do multi task work and the like while listening to music.

Yes I have the MAC 15 inch Pro laptop unit which I sometimes use as a remote and muti-task as you say.  I will have to have a look at the Air

[whanafi]

Ok, how about 800ps measured on digital output of Squeezebox? That was an independent measurement. This is easily heard. A mid-fi $300.00 CD player will have significantly lower jitter on its digital output. I spend a lot of time and money trying to get top performance out of PC based transport, I got close with 5K setup, but could not better top spinners. Things like Squeezebox are at the very bottom of such product lineup.
As far as reviews go, there are reviewers that will say that MAC notebook with its optical output is a top performer, which is a joke.

You keep referring to "the Squeezebox" when in fact there were/are a whole range of devices originally built by Slim Devices which was then acquired by Logitech.  Something like the Duet is not in the same class as the Transporter. 

As to jitter, neither the Touch nor the Transporter have jitter measured at the value you claim (without citing a source).

Here is the Transporter review from Stereophile with measured specs:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/slim-devices-transporter-network-music-player-specifications

"Specifications

Description: WiFi (802.11g) and/or Ethernet-connected D/A processor with digital-domain volume control (range-adjusted with resistor jumpers). Digital inputs: TosLink, coaxial, BNC, AES/EBU, word-clock (BNC). Digital outputs: TosLink, coaxial, BNC, AES/EBU. Analog outputs, 1 pair each: RCA, balanced XLR. Operating systems supported: Mac OS X 10.3 or later; 733MHz Pentium running Windows NT/2000/XP; Linux/BSD/Solaris/Perl 5.8.3 or later. Sample rates supported: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz. Audio formats supported: linear PCM, 16 or 24 bits/sample. Maximum output levels: 2V RMS, single-ended; 3V RMS, balanced. Signal/noise ratio: 120dB (no reference specified). THD: –106dB (0.00005%). Intrinsic jitter: 11ps (standard deviation). Power: auto-ranging, relay-controlled. Supplied accessories: user's manual, SlimServer software (requires download), custom infrared remote control, 2 AA batteries."

and for the Touch:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch-Review

Point being that you keep using crude adjectives rather than fact or experience to dismiss something you apparently have not actually used. 

[Sasha]

You keep referring to "the Squeezebox" when in fact there were/are a whole range of devices originally built by Slim Devices which was then acquired by Logitech.  Something like the Duet is not in the same class as the Transporter. 

As to jitter, neither the Touch nor the Transporter have jitter measured at the value you claim (without citing a source).

Here is the Transporter review from Stereophile with measured specs:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/slim-devices-transporter-network-music-player-specifications

"Specifications

Description: WiFi (802.11g) and/or Ethernet-connected D/A processor with digital-domain volume control (range-adjusted with resistor jumpers). Digital inputs: TosLink, coaxial, BNC, AES/EBU, word-clock (BNC). Digital outputs: TosLink, coaxial, BNC, AES/EBU. Analog outputs, 1 pair each: RCA, balanced XLR. Operating systems supported: Mac OS X 10.3 or later; 733MHz Pentium running Windows NT/2000/XP; Linux/BSD/Solaris/Perl 5.8.3 or later. Sample rates supported: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz. Audio formats supported: linear PCM, 16 or 24 bits/sample. Maximum output levels: 2V RMS, single-ended; 3V RMS, balanced. Signal/noise ratio: 120dB (no reference specified). THD: –106dB (0.00005%). Intrinsic jitter: 11ps (standard deviation). Power: auto-ranging, relay-controlled. Supplied accessories: user's manual, SlimServer software (requires download), custom infrared remote control, 2 AA batteries."

and for the Touch:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Logitech-Squeezebox-Touch-Review

Point being that you keep using crude adjectives rather than fact or experience to dismiss something you apparently have not actually used.

There is no point to continue this discussion, you are quoting intrinsic jitter and trying to prove something with it?
Think whatever you want, be convinced it is great, it is your money.
The OP has made the right choice.

[TomS]

Hi Rick,

No you can use an iTouch, iPhone or Laptop as well as iPod etc. to interface with the BDP-1.

james

Yes, I use the iPod touch with MPod as well and it's great for controlling MPD, but the BR2 is needed to remotely switch the inputs of the BDA-1.  The BR2 can also control the volume of MPD through my USB->S/PDIF converter, which is nice.

Once the NAS gap is closed and since he doesn't care about internet radio, Pandora, etc then there's really no need for the Transporter other than a bigger display/UI.

[Nonpoint]

Like the debate, but still trying to understand one thing....what does the the BDP do to a music file that makes it sound better than a squeezebox?  Or is it simply the fact a BDP will play a 176 file while the SB taps out at 96?

[Welly123]

Like the debate, but still trying to understand one thing....what does the the BDP do to a music file that makes it sound better than a squeezebox?  Or is it simply the fact a BDP will play a 176 file while the SB taps out at 96?

That is the primary point, the BDP-1 does absolutely nothing to the music file (at least as close as current tech seems to allow), where most "transports" impose their own character (in most cases, flaws) in one way or another. The BDP-1 is as simple as it gets, and that is exactly what is needed in order to allow the true recording to be experienced. Unfortunately, a bad recording is exposed just as a great recording shines.

Regards

Russell

[Phil A]

Like the debate, but still trying to understand one thing....what does the the BDP do to a music file that makes it sound better than a squeezebox?  Or is it simply the fact a BDP will play a 176 file while the SB taps out at 96?

The Squeezebox Touch is nice.  I picked one up on a good deal (40%) off.  It has a horrible power supply.  I spent about a hair over $200 for a nice non-switching some.  To get them to sound better some (boldercables.com) do mods to the digital or analog sections.  Some also disconnect the video interface (which of course is a nice feature to view what you are playing.  So you can easily spend $600-$800 for improvements to your Squeezebox Touch to get it to sound closer to the quality of the BDP-1 and it will do 96 vs. the 192 of the BDP-1.  It's a question of how much you want to spend on the type of product.  For now, I am happy with the results of the Touch with the upgraded power supply and going through the BDA-1.  One of my next projects is a PC build.  I don't need one that bad but am building it for more optimization of having digital music files for one thing.  When that gets done and I feel I need more, I may certainly look at something like the BDP-1. 

I am an old guy and still like physical discs.  I am using the Touch with a bunch of lossless files I did on WMA when I had a Zune.  I also at this point don't have the time I'd like to convert things and if I were to do so it would be better if I had that new PC.  So, I'm taking the initial step of making it easier to house digital files over the network.

[James Tanner]

Hi folks

Just a caution - trying to assemble a computer based digital playback system from scratch is not an easy task. Especially if a high resolution 192/24 low noise system is the goal.

I spent the good part of a year playing with different operating systems and sound cards. It was frustrating to say the least and is certainly not plug and play. A  number of customers have called me to say that they purchased the BDP because of the frustration of attempting to get quality audio from a home brewed system. It can be done but you have to have a fair bit of IT knowledge to pull it off. 

[Sasha]

Like the debate, but still trying to understand one thing....what does the the BDP do to a music file that makes it sound better than a squeezebox?  Or is it simply the fact a BDP will play a 176 file while the SB taps out at 96?

One word, jitter.
Squeezebox does not sound good when compared to other similarly priced digital sources, and it can be correlated to high jitter shown in measurements.
Some will claim that jitter plays no role if below 1nS (so with all due respect they are deaf), or that it plays no role because of jitter rejection methods employed in so many moderns DACs (so again, with all due respect they are deaf).
Some will claim that all is needed is a good clock (and they will quote it), disregarding all other sources of jitter, PSU, tracing, EMI, etc. and that as long you are locked there cannot be possibly any problems (so again,… ).

[Phil A]

Hi folks

Just a caution - trying to assemble a computer based digital playback system from scratch is not an easy task. Especially if a high resolution 192/24 low noise system is the goal.

I spent the good part of a year playing with different operating systems and sound cards. If was frustrating to say the least and is certainly not plug and play. A  number of customers have called me to say that they purchased the BDP because of the frustration of attempting to get quality audio from a home brewed system. It can be done but you have to have a fair bit of IT knowledge to pull it off.

James, I'd agree.  I have friends who have done it and have had the same issues.  That's why I'm taking an initial route of building a nice PC for storing digital files and a nice sound card.  I'll have the Squeezebox Touch to start off with and when I decide I need to upgrade I have options like the BDP-1.  I'll get my music library in shape and organized for a playback device before I take the plunge into a more expensive playback solution.  I may end up with an iPhone sometime next year too and as I have more pieces in place to have friendly navigation and playback it makes the upgrade an easier decision.