[Napalm]

I were just doing the math and realized that with the advent of USB 3.0, it is now possible to have an asynchronous DAC doing 24/192 over the USB input. And it wouldn't be affected by cables or computer clock latencies and jitter.

So when would we see a Bryston one?

Nap.

[James Tanner]

I were just doing the math and realized that with the advent of USB 3.0, it is now possible to have an asynchronous DAC doing 24/192 over the USB input. And it wouldn't be affected by cables or computer clock latencies and jitter.

So when would we see a Bryston one?

Nap.

Hi Nap,

No plans at this point in that direction.

james

[Napalm]

Hi James,

May I suggest that you let your engineers contemplate the idea?

My crystal ball says that in one year or two everything will be USB 3.0.

In 2 years having USB 2.0 only would be the hallmark of obsolete hardware. Regardless if it actually does the job - it will be a matter of perception.

Nap.

[James Tanner]

Hi James,

May I suggest that you let your engineers contemplate the idea?

My crystal ball says that in one year or two everything will be USB 3.0.

In 2 years having USB 2.0 only would be the hallmark of obsolete hardware. Regardless if it actually does the job - it will be a matter of perception.

Nap.

Hi Nap,

Yes thanks - we have looked at it but given the way we handle the signal with the BDP-1 and BDA-1 we feel we are fine for a long while.  Also I would want to look at modifications to the current units rather than a completely new product if possible which provides our customers with an upgrade path.

james

[Napalm]

Also I would want to look at modifications to the current units rather than a completely new product if possible which provides our customers with an upgrade path.

Correct, you can watch the prices of USB chipsets, at some point 3 won't be any more expensive than 2, you could have a production refresh were you just change the chipset. It won't do anything but you'll be able to write USB 3.0 in the specs which helps with not having the BDA-1 dismissed from start as "obsolete".

But in the end I would really want to see the 24/192 async thing over USB 3. (yeah it may cannibalize some BDP sales but it would also help sell the BDA to people that wouldn't want a BDP).

Nap.

[TomS]

For those who must have hi speed USB now (USB 2.0 with USB Audio Class 2.0 support, USB 3.0 is not necessary), I use the Audiphilleo1 USB to BNC on the BDA1 and it works perfectly to 24/192 on Linux, W7, and OSX.  http://www.audiophilleo.com/  The AP2 bypasses some of the bells and whistles for about $500.

The Bryston BR2 remote integrates with the AP1 for volume control and makes it a terrific setup. It may be better if it was direct native I2S internal to the BDA1, but I think this AP1/BDA1 combo would still be pretty hard to top. Many hate S/PDIF on paper and a lot of the implementations measure very poorly, but as the BDP1 is also proving, a well thought out system implementation and thorough attention to detail can make it work very, very well.

Tom

[Napalm]

Many hate S/PDIF on paper and a lot of the implementations measure very poorly,

Correct. As a digital interface, S/PDIF is flawed by design.

This is why I'm pushing here for USB async. 

Or at least for a BDAP-1 with internal DAC?

Nap.

[TomS]

Correct. As a digital interface, S/PDIF is flawed by design.

This is why I'm pushing here for USB async. 

Or at least for a BDAP-1 with internal DAC?

Nap.

Obviously, I can agree with that, but now that I've listened at great length, to a really good low jitter USB async to S/PDIF conversion connected to a well implemented S/PDIF receiver in the BDA1 vs some very mediocre, at best, USB direct implementations, I'll take this one hands down 

Ideal for me, would be to offer the Audiphilleo Async USB technology as an upgrade internally to the BDA1, bypassing S/PDIF    Unfortunately that starts to edge into the BDP1's market space too.

James, I can probably hook you up on this if you're interested 

Tom

[werd]

I were just doing the math and realized that with the advent of USB 3.0, it is now possible to have an asynchronous DAC doing 24/192 over the USB input. And it wouldn't be affected by cables or computer clock latencies and jitter.

So when would we see a Bryston one?

Nap.

Nap they could've at least made the BDA 96/24 usb. That tells you everything right there. They didnt because they want to sell the bdp in partnership.

USB 3.0 will be the norm, i am guessing, when we start seeing 32 bit upsampling and 32 bit recordings.

Can't wait!!!

[Napalm]

Obviously, I can agree with that, but now that I've listened at great length, to a really good low jitter USB async to S/PDIF conversion connected to a well implemented S/PDIF receiver in the BDA1 vs some very mediocre, at best, USB direct implementations, I'll take this one hands down 

Agreed but from Bryston we would expect nothing but an excellent async USB implementation.

Imagine how good it could sound 

And all this from your favorite notebook 

Nap.

[Napalm]

Teasing James:

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/proaudio/emu-0202.html

Nap. 

[TomS]

Agreed but from Bryston we would expect nothing but an excellent async USB implementation.

Imagine how good it could sound 

And all this from your favorite notebook 

Nap.

Which is why I suggested putting a stripped down AP1 circuit inside 

I use a $115 silent Linux appliance with MPD server, direct to AP1 USB, so I don't even need a laptop to source it. ipod, ipad, droid works great for a client.  All free software too.

[werd]

Teasing James:

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/proaudio/emu-0202.html

Nap. 

Nap.....oh poor ole nap.

sit down here nap and i will make you some cocoa.

Werd hands naps some cocoa to try and make him feel better.

Werd starts off by saying;

"You see nap this is what happens when you don't respect your front-end. You start posting shit on the fly with out really knowing what you own system sounds like". hehe

"By the looks of it that usb on the fly piece of shit would probably sound exactly the same if it was using a 16 bit dac. You wouldn't hear the difference i bet only because of the under engineered analogue circuitry screwing it up so bad".

that piece is generic, You want a bryston dac sound, you going to need good analogue circuitry too. So posting 24 bit crap and suggesting that its easily done isn't being honest. Well i am hoping you are not being honest, or maybe you just don't know..... 

"Now give me back my cocoa......doosh".......  i love bugging you buddy

[Napalm]

"You see nap this is what happens when you don't respect your front-end. You start posting shit on the fly with out really knowing what you own system sounds like". hehe

Duh Werd. What happens when your "front end" is a microphone? Did you try it with your uber-cablemaze-system?

Otherwise, you may want to know that many of your beloved CDs might have been recorded exactly through such boxes.

nap.

[Napalm]

Now we go from a $200 plastic box to a $500 metal one:

http://www.usbdac.com.au/index.php/dac-news/item/103-onkyo-dac-1000-32bit/192khz-usb-dac

Quote: "unlike many major manufacturers, they have done a proper USB implementation with full support for 32bit files up to 192kHz.

As well, the USB port is an asynchronous port, meaning the DAC itself takes charge of the data being sent through the USB port to enable lower levels of jitter."

Nap.

P.S. Werd, this one has plenty of holes where to stick your beloved cables.

[werd]

Duh Werd. What happens when your "front end" is a microphone? Did you try it with your uber-cablemaze-system?

Otherwise, you may want to know that many of your beloved CDs might have been recorded exactly through such boxes.

nap.

I am not sure what you are getting at with the microphone stuff ?  I am thinking it has to do with lousy recordings and their gear...  .

You see this is where the confusion reigns with this argument. Although we are amplifying their recording hence good recording/bad recording. We are not amplifying their associated local equipment housed in their studio. At home we are amplifying all the gear in our setup along with their good/bad recording. That point has always been blurred since this very important point is never brought up when talking about recording studio mediocrity.

[Napalm]

We are not amplifying their associated local equipment housed in their studio.

Yes you are. Your amp is not selective as in amplifying the "good" signal only. It amplifies everything, including the noise and distortions of the recording equipment.

As for the microphones. Connecting one as the "front end" makes sure there's no crappy recording/processing introduced in unknown quantities.

Nap.