[audioman999]

I bought this rare thing called a CD, brought it home, copied it to my mac and now am not sure what to do given the numerous listening options Bryston now provides.

I would appreciate your thoughts and/or comments on which of the following option would provide the ultimate listening experience.

1.  play CD on a "high" level transport and digital out to Bryston's onboard dac in the B100SST or BP26.

2.  play CD on the BCD1.

3.  play cd on a "high" level transport and digital out to BDA1.

4.  stream music to squeezebox touch or similar device "unmodified" and digital out to BDA1

5.  download on USB key and play through BDP1 through either onboard DAC as in #1 or through BDA1.

I realize that BDA1 and BDP1 provide additional flexibility with hi rez files but wondered what option was the best for regular CD quality as it seems the majority of us still find most of our music on CD.

Thanks for the input.

[Mag]

I have to use my wall of TVs example where I use to work.

Okay there's a live horse racing event simulcast to several TVs. Not being at the live event we have no way of knowing the correct color of the horses, grass, track, etc.. Each TV is either big or small, has sharper image or different color hues. My preference might be for the smaller TV with the sharp image and what I think are the realistic colors. It however is only a scaled down version of the real event, and my choice is a preference not having been at the actual event location.

So it is the same with audio at this point. Not having heard the actual event of the recording, we don't know for sure which source platform is the most realistic of the actual event, only a preference.

Based on BDP-1 reviews so far. It should be the most realistic accurate playback of the actual recording. But again we don't know that with certainty, not having been there.

[skunark]

Assuming the file you ripped is bit-perfect to the source, the BDP-1 will be the most reliable transport.  Streaming will be the least reliable transport.   As for the various combinations, it's all up to the DAC, pre-amp, amp and speakers to provide the bells and whistles for the actual playback. 

To me,
for 1,2  and 3: The BDP-1 provides convenience that a CD player doesn't offer.  And you don't have to worry about a dirty or scratched CD.
as for 4:  Streaming requires a server and least reliable as there are several more factors involved to stream the music.

and 5: I don't believe the onboard DACss for BCD or B100ST with anything higher than 24-bit 96kHz.  The BDA-1 will do 24-bit 192kHz.

[Napalm]

6. Attend a live performance.

Nap. 

[Rupret]

6. Attend a live performance.

Nap. 

Live performances lack tone controls

[konut]

Live performances lack tone controls

But you more than make up for that with the belching, coughing, and farting. 

[sfraser]

I vote for the streaming, with a good DAC at the front end. I love the flexibility of being able to listen to anything in my library (over 4k albums) instantly, anywhere in my house.

Audio man, have you had the opportunity of comparing the squeezebox and the BDP1 using the Bryston DAC? That sounds like fun!

BTW skunark, the BDP1 is a computer, and it streams data too, via the digital connection to the DAC.

[srb]

BTW skunark, the BDP1 is a computer, and it streams data too, via the digital connection to the DAC.

I think the distinction is that the BDP-1 performs playback of raw audio files from locally attached drives versus an audio "streaming" device which packages audio data into network packets and streams them across a network via Ethernet or Wi-Fi.
 
Steve

[alexone]

Audioman,

if your B100 has the internal DAC then use it. take a player that you can 'trust' and plug the digital out into the Bryston.
the BDA-1 is surely a great device but if you don't really need it (usb, balanced outs, upsampling on/off switch, 176.4 and/or 192 khz) then you are fine with your integrated amp.
if you are someone who has serious intentions of state-of-the-art hdd music playback the BDP-1 is the perfect match either for the B100 or the BDA-1. i know that i repeat myself here but keep in mind that the B100's DAC cannot play back music with 176.4 or 192 khz!
Bryston products are designed to meet the highest standards given the specific product and demands therefore.


al.

[sfraser]

I think the distinction is that the BDP-1 performs playback of raw audio files from locally attached drives versus an audio "streaming" device which packages audio data into network packets and streams them across a network via Ethernet or Wi-Fi.
 
Steve


Hey Steve, thanks for the reply, your absolutely right. My point is that both systems are doing very similar tasks, but there seems to be a hesitation with streaming thatI don't understand. I design large packet networks for customers for a living, and not once has a customer ever asked me if the network can deliver the data reliably, and bit perfect. It is a given that it will do that. It is also not a difficult task for a modest modern day computer/OS to stream data at 2-3mbps over Ethernet .

Cheers

[srb]

My point is that both systems are doing very similar tasks, but there seems to be a hesitation with streaming thatI don't understand. I design large packet networks for customers for a living, and not once has a customer ever asked me if the network can deliver the data reliably, and bit perfect. It is a given that it will do that. It is also not a difficult task for a modest modern day computer/OS to stream data at 2-3mbps over Ethernet.

Sure, I don't personally think that raw audio data playback is necessarily superior to network packet data streaming, only that there is a technical distinction between streaming and non-streaming, and that Bryston (and some BDP-1 owners) say it is better sounding.
 
Steve

[Napalm]

Sure, I don't personally think that raw audio data playback is necessarily superior to network packet data streaming, only that there is a technical distinction between streaming and non-streaming, and that Bryston (and some BDP-1 owners) say it is better sounding.
 
Steve

As long as the DAC plays the same bits at the same clock rate, it doesn't matter how those bits got into the DAC (streaming, non-streaming or plainly read from a local file).

Nap.

[audioman999]

Audioman,

if your B100 has the internal DAC then use it. take a player that you can 'trust' and plug the digital out into the Bryston.
the BDA-1 is surely a great device but if you don't really need it (usb, balanced outs, upsampling on/off switch, 176.4 and/or 192 khz) then you are fine with your integrated amp.
if you are someone who has serious intentions of state-of-the-art hdd music playback the BDP-1 is the perfect match either for the B100 or the BDA-1. i know that i repeat myself here but keep in mind that the B100's DAC cannot play back music with 176.4 or 192 khz!
Bryston products are designed to meet the highest standards given the specific product and demands therefore.


al.

Great advice.  Thanks.  I'm currently doing some a/b comparisons between bcd 1 and using the dac in the B100sst.  If nothing else, my wife prefers the look of the bcd1 because it matches.   

[skunark]

Hey Steve, thanks for the reply, your absolutely right. My point is that both systems are doing very similar tasks, but there seems to be a hesitation with streaming thatI don't understand. I design large packet networks for customers for a living, and not once has a customer ever asked me if the network can deliver the data reliably, and bit perfect. It is a given that it will do that. It is also not a difficult task for a modest modern day computer/OS to stream data at 2-3mbps over Ethernet .

Cheers

If you've designed "large networks' then you should the key differences between TCP and UDP packets.  TCP is reliable and UDP is not.  Time critical applications, like streaming will use UDP packets.    To date, all audio streaming protocol do use UDP.   

That is the huge difference between the BDP and streaming solutions.  Playback on the BDP is not subject to how well your computer or network operates.  It's out of the picture. 

The undocumented feature about the BDP-1 is that you can copy files to an attached HDD, so essentially it acts as network-attached-storage device that happens to play back audio.  This method uses the reliable TCP protocol and as you update your library on the BDP-1, you can sit back and listen to a record

If there ever is a solution that streams audio using the TCP protocol that would be a very reliable method, but this solution gets more costly as you would have to store the entire song before playback and there would be gaps between tracks.

[sfraser]

If you've designed "large networks' then you should the key differences between TCP and UDP packets.  TCP is reliable and UDP is not.  Time critical applications, like streaming will use UDP packets.    To date, all audio streaming protocol do use UDP.   

That is the huge difference between the BDP and streaming solutions.  Playback on the BDP is not subject to how well your computer or network operates.  It's out of the picture. 

The undocumented feature about the BDP-1 is that you can copy files to an attached HDD, so essentially it acts as network-attached-storage device that happens to play back audio.  This method uses the reliable TCP protocol and as you update your library on the BDP-1, you can sit back and listen to a record

If there ever is a solution that streams audio using the TCP protocol that would be a very reliable method, but this solution gets more costly as you would have to store the entire song before playback and there would be gaps between tracks.

Hi skunark, thanks for the reply.
Yes I am aware of the differences betwenn UDP and TCP, ACK, SYN and RED slope  policies, tail drops  etc . I would not worry to much about UDP on local home Ethernet it should work just fine.

However  communications between the Squeezecenter server and the Squeezebox is TCP based not UDP , so the point is mute.

Cheers,

[BrystonFan]

At leat you can't say Bryston doesn't give us choices! 

[srb]

However  communications between the Squeezecenter server and the Squeezebox is TCP based not UDP , so the point is mute.

My understanding is that Squeezebox and Squeezebox Server communicate via UDP and Squeezeserver and the browser interface communicate via TCP.
 
Of course, I could be mistaken, but in the end hopefully the point is MOOT.  Mute is never a good thing for audio!
 
Steve
 
 

[skunark]

My understanding is that Squeezebox and Squeezebox Server communicate via UDP and Squeezeserver and the browser interface communicate via TCP.
 
Of course, I could be mistaken, but in the end hopefully the point is MOOT.  Mute is never a good thing for audio!
 
Steve

The slimserver does use UDP to stream music.   

UDP and TCP are "transport layer protocols"... ACK/SYN are part of the TCP, RED slope.. interesting, never heard of it, will have to google some time.

Sadly it's very difficult to detect when a UDP packet drops in general because you need to monitor every device on the network between point A and point B to see where one or more has dropped, and hopefully the application layer has a mechanism to log and report at the receiving device.   When you stream music or video it's pretty apparent when multiple packets dropped, but one or two packets can be difficult to tell. 

[sfraser]

The slimserver does use UDP to stream music.   

UDP and TCP are "transport layer protocols"... ACK/SYN are part of the TCP, RED slope.. interesting, never heard of it, will have to google some time.

Sadly it's very difficult to detect when a UDP packet drops in general because you need to monitor every device on the network between point A and point B to see where one or more has dropped, and hopefully the application layer has a mechanism to log and report at the receiving device.   When you stream music or video it's pretty apparent when multiple packets dropped, but one or two packets can be difficult to tell.

Hi skunark, not that it's  important for this thread but RED stands for Random Early Detect, and it is a nerd knob that can be turned on a router to effect the throughput behaviour of TCP traffic . As you most likely know, TCP traffic rate/ throughput is effected by the increasing/decreasing  TCP window size of the individual TCP flow's. In larger networks this can create a saw   tooth effect limiting overall throughput. Enabling RED and a corresponding slope policy will start randomly (or not so randomly) dropping packets  on TCP flows to ensure the window size of all flows don't remain in sync. This effectively limits the saw tooth effect and increases overall throughput. The stateful behaviour of TCP  that you mentioned earlier ensures the dropped packets get re transmitted.

Now none of the above really matters in the average home network. And in the home network UDP packets will seldom  get dropped either.

According to Sean Adam's (founder of Slimdevices) traffic flows  between the Squeezebox and the Squeezeserver are TCP  based not UDP. If you would like I have a unit in my lab, I could quickly grab a traffic flow on testset and post it if you like?

[smargo]

I bought this rare thing called a CD, brought it home, copied it to my mac and now am not sure what to do given the numerous listening options Bryston now provides.

I would appreciate your thoughts and/or comments on which of the following option would provide the ultimate listening experience.

1.  play CD on a "high" level transport and digital out to Bryston's onboard dac in the B100SST or BP26.

2.  play CD on the BCD1.

3.  play cd on a "high" level transport and digital out to BDA1.

4.  stream music to squeezebox touch or similar device "unmodified" and digital out to BDA1

5.  download on USB key and play through BDP1 through either onboard DAC as in #1 or through BDA1.

I realize that BDA1 and BDP1 provide additional flexibility with hi rez files but wondered what option was the best for regular CD quality as it seems the majority of us still find most of our music on CD.

Thanks for the input.

Don't play anything - forget you bought the cd - you wont have any choices and you will be happier you wont have to deal with it

no im not a troll