[WBimmer]

I have a BDP on order and I've been reading up and getting ready for it's arrival.

James was kind enough to send me an electronic copy of the manual and I've been reading up on rippers and leaning toward getting dB Poweramp. 

With all the buzz about increased resolution music and such that this player is capable of playing, it makes me question the comments on this site about the fact that the general public cannot tell the difference between 16 or 24 bit or 44, 96 or 192 kHz samples. http://www.dbpoweramp.com/spoons-audio-guide-cd-ripping.htm

They've made a disclaimer on this site by saying the general public cannot tell the difference and an audiophile is not the general public when it comes to their hobby, but I'm interested in people's thoughts on whether there is truly a difference.  I guess I will have my opinion when I take delivery and play with my BDP.

Also, the debate on FLAC or WAV seems like a another place where maybe there really isn't a difference.  If a FLAC file is bit for bit the same as the original, only compressed and then de-compressed, then there should be no difference.  But people say they can hear the difference.  If you take a computer program such as a game and ZIP it into a compressed file and then de-compress it, it is identical in every single bit, otherwise it wouldn't work and the game would crash.  So how is FLAC differenct from this and how can you hear a difference in that zero information is removed or changed??

Wayne.

[Ned F. Kuehn]

I use MediaMonkey Gold and rip everything to flac files. I hear no difference with flac vs wav on a rather high resolution system. Server music sounds much better than the same played via a transport (some rather expensive). Friends not into the high end world can readily hear the difference of high resolution versions compared to red book CD versions.  People have good hearing abilities and I have never understood the contention that high resolution files are no better than red book CD standards. Too many out there dumbed down with mp3 music listening.
Ned

[Sasha]

There are also claims that there is no audible difference between 16/44.1 and 320kbps or VBR MP3, while in fact there are, and significant ones, so do not pay attention to it, such statements are usually made by people with poor hearing or badly informed or simply ignorant to the whole concept of music reproduction.
In terms of FLAC versa WAV, it can be audible as well, doing real time decompression of FLAC does have a significant cost in additional CPU cycles and can be very audible on some systems due to increased jitter. This is why people go to extreme lengths to minimize CPU/memory/power consumption in custom built cost no object PC based digital sources.
Finally, regardless of some claims, there is no PC based digital source that can match performance of top player as long as we compare reproduction of 16/44.1, simply because with PC based source you pay the penalty of sending the signal to an external DAC for conversion over many more components in the path that inevitably increase jitter, and there are no such things as jitter immune DACs, again contrary to some claims.
It all depends on how far you want to take it, if you want absolutely the best reproduction of 16/44.1 then top end dedicated CD players are unbeatable. But PC based sources bring the ability to play higher resolution signal and that leaves CD players behind.

[Ned F. Kuehn]

I respectfully disagree with FLAC vs WAV and contention that a transport will sound better than a server. Robert Harley, for whom I have great respect, (as well as others) have looked at these issues closely. Music server quality is often better than disc because of error correction during laser read of a spinning disc. Hard drive data is bit perfect and reading data off a hard disc is rather straight forward as compared to laser tracking of a spinning disc that may be wobbling or eccentric. Disc-ripping software can read the disc repeatedly and assure that data is perfectly accurate before moving on. Roberts comparison of state of the art transports vs a well constructed music server mirrors my experience that the server sourced music is smoother with improved soundstage, finer rendering of treble, greater image focus, greater space within the recorded venue. There is greater involvement and sense of overall ease to musical involvement with well constructed server based systems. The BDP-1 is steller in that its only mission is music recovery (no extraneous system needs as may be encountered with a regular computer). As for FLAC, it is like a zip file and bit perfect. The BDP-1 does a steller job of handling these files (probably better than PC/Apple based software systems. Data in FLAC (or other lossless compression schemes) is preserved just as a zip file sent around the world with delicate financial or other information. It can be opened anywhere and be in perfect condition. This does mean that one must be diligent in hard drive maintenance and regularly checking for sector errors, etc that might corrupt digital data. The server based systems also opens ones door to allow for musical inquiry like that never offered with LP, Tape, or Optial Disc.
Cheers,
Ned

[Sasha]

I respectfully disagree with FLAC vs WAV and contention that a transport will sound better than a server. Robert Harley, for whom I have great respect, (as well as others) have looked at these issues closely. Music server quality is often better than disc because of error correction during laser read of a spinning disc. Hard drive data is bit perfect and reading data off a hard disc is rather straight forward as compared to laser tracking of a spinning disc that may be wobbling or eccentric. Disc-ripping software can read the disc repeatedly and assure that data is perfectly accurate before moving on. Roberts comparison of state of the art transports vs a well constructed music server mirrors my experience that the server sourced music is smoother with improved soundstage, finer rendering of treble, greater image focus, greater space within the recorded venue. There is greater involvement and sense of overall ease to musical involvement with well constructed server based systems. The BDP-1 is steller in that its only mission is music recovery (no extraneous system needs as may be encountered with a regular computer). As for FLAC, it is like a zip file and bit perfect. The BDP-1 does a steller job of handling these files (probably better than PC/Apple based software systems. Data in FLAC (or other lossless compression schemes) is preserved just as a zip file sent around the world with delicate financial or other information. It can be opened anywhere and be in perfect condition. This does mean that one must be diligent in hard drive maintenance and regularly checking for sector errors, etc that might corrupt digital data. The server based systems also opens ones door to allow for musical inquiry like that never offered with LP, Tape, or Optial Disc.
Cheers,
Ned

You base your comments on what you have read, I base on what I have heard, having one of best players and having the best PC based transport that could be built.
And the issue is jitter, everything is bit perfect in this case.
It would be interesting to know how you arrived to your conclusions, can you share information on the components and the setup you used for evaluation?

[sfraser]

You base your comments on what you have read, I base on what I have heard, having one of best players and having the best PC based transport that could be built.
And the issue is jitter, everything is bit perfect in this case.
It would be interesting to know how you arrived to your conclusions, can you share information on the components and the setup you used for evaluation?

I applaud your effort to refer to the PC as a transport VS a server. It is a much better representation of what the PC is doing in this particular discussion.

[konut]

Sasha, have you heard the BDP-1?

[Sasha]

Sasha, have you heard the BDP-1?

No, I built PC based transport myself, using the best available components regardless of cost, for both HW and SW, with only essential HW and services enabled (i.e. I do not have any fans, no optical drives, no bus but PCI, stripped down OS, Lynx/ASIO, Steinberg Wavelab, AES/EBU into external DAC).
Compared that to Wadia 581i SE with digital I/O board, so the only variable was slaved optical drive versa digital signal on AES/EBU input of digital I/O booard, and optical drive did sound better, higher jitter in digital signal on input was clearly audible.
That is the only way to compare it, what people typically do is compare standalone player to a PC transport / DAC, or even player into DAC, which is completely skewed approach, and what they hear is a combination of several different components.
PC based transport did however sound better than any player I tried into the same DAC.

[konut]

How can you justify the fact that you are doing exactly what you accuse  Ned F. Kuehn of doing? I would submit that you have NOT heard the best PC based  transport because that is what the BDP-1 is.

[Sasha]

How can you justify the fact that you are doing exactly what you accuse  Ned F. Kuehn of doing? I would submit that you have NOT heard the best PC based  transport because that is what the BDP-1 is.

BDP-1 is certainly a good product, and exceptional one for the price, but if you beleive it is the best, you have a lot more to hear.

[sfraser]

BDP-1 is certainly a good product, and exceptional one for the price, but if you beleive it is the best, you have a lot more to hear.

Interesting, other than sound card perhaps, the BDP-1 and your home grown transport sound (no pun intended) very similar in construction. Except one was built in a house ( I am assuming) and the other in Bryston's  R&D facilities.

[Sasha]

Interesting, other than sound card perhaps, the BDP-1 and your home grown transport sound (no pun intended) very similar in construction. Except one was built in a house ( I am assuming) and the other in Bryston's  R&D facilities.

Very good observation, and that is the reason I have no desire to even try BDP-1. I am sure it is well designed product, all Bryston products are, and very few would be able to improve it, but I do not see how an ordinary PC motherboard booting Linux kernel from an ordinary solid state disk, using ESI Juli card, could be better than what I have, considering that components I used were of much higher quality/cost (and that is not only my assessment), or even to be the best transport that in combination with an external DAC outperforms the best dedicated CD players.
People simply cannot put things into the right perspective.
To clarify further, ANY PC based transport is doomed in comparison to best CD players simply because of the inevitable jitter.

[James Tanner]

Very good observation, and that is the reason I have no desire to even try BDP-1. I am sure it is well designed product, all Bryston products are, and very few would be able to improve it, but I do not see how an ordinary PC motherboard booting Linux kernel from an ordinary solid state disk, using ESI Juli card, could be better than what I have, considering that components I used were of much higher quality/cost (and that is not only my assessment), or even to be the best transport that in combination with an external DAC outperforms the best dedicated CD players.
People simply cannot put things into the right perspective.
To clarify further, ANY PC based transport is doomed in comparison to best CD players simply because of the inevitable jitter.

Sasha

That's interesting. What based on you experience would be a good jitter number for a CD player vs a good number on a player like the BDP?

James

[sfraser]

James, what size of input buffer does the Bryston DAC have?

Thanks

[James Tanner]

James, what size of input buffer does the Bryston DAC have?

ThanksU

Not sure - will ask engineering tomorrow  You mean the DAC not the Player?

James

[sfraser]

Not sure - will ask engineering tomorrow  You mean the DAC not the Player?

James

Yea I was thinking about the DAC James.

I really have no experience in DAC design but I do a lot network testing where we take time division multiplexed circuits (traditional digital telephone circuits) which are very sensitive to jitter and encapsulate and send  them through a packet network (internet). Packet networks are  prone to jitter and packet bursts, but we can eliminate this  on the receive side by playing around with the receive buffer size.  As long as we don't run out of buffer space, from a large packet burst  we can re-clock the data on the receive side  and eliminate the jitter (to acceptable levels).

With products such a the BDP-1, there would be no "bursting" just "some" level of jitter. If my DAC can buffer the stream (adding some latency) and re-clock, then I fail to see why jitter from a transport would be an issue.

However....like I said in my opening paragraph, I know nothing about DAC design 

[Sasha]

Sasha

That's interesting. What based on you experience would be a good jitter number for a CD player vs a good number on a player like the BDP?

James

I have no idea what number represents an audioble treshold if that is what you are asking.

[sfraser]

Very good observation, and that is the reason I have no desire to even try BDP-1. I am sure it is well designed product, all Bryston products are, and very few would be able to improve it, but I do not see how an ordinary PC motherboard booting Linux kernel from an ordinary solid state disk, using ESI Juli card, could be better than what I have, considering that components I used were of much higher quality/cost (and that is not only my assessment), or even to be the best transport that in combination with an external DAC outperforms the best dedicated CD players.
People simply cannot put things into the right perspective.
To clarify further, ANY PC based transport is doomed in comparison to best CD players simply because of the inevitable jitter.

Perhaps, but other than the sound card the cost and quality of computer  components do not necessarily equate to less jitter. One would have to look at the design parameters and intent  of the components in question, which other than  digital output stage  of the sound card  would not likely include minimum jitter .

Cheers,

[Sasha]

Perhaps, but other than the sound card the cost and quality of computer  components do not necessarily equate to less jitter. One would have to look at the design parameters and intent  of the components in question, which other than  digital output stage  of the sound card  would not likely include minimum jitter .

Cheers,

They do actually, for example some motherboard manufacturers pay attention to tracing the same way Bryston does in amp design, use higher quality parts, etc., all that impacts the noise sound card is picking up from the bus.
I am not disputing that BDP-1 is good product, I am disputing that BDP-1 (or any PC based transport) is better than the top dedicated CD players.
Of course the difference is not tremendous in favor of top CD players, and when you consider ability to play higher resolution material it changes the game completely, I no longer have CD player. Since I built my transport before Bryston was even thinking about it, and built it using absolutely the best components available, I have no reason to get BDP-1. If I did not have my transport then I would most likely get BDP-1.

[James Tanner]

I have no idea what number represents an audioble treshold if that is what you are asking.

Hi Sasha,

The reason I ask is the British review on the BDP/BDA measured 30psec on the 48K/24bit source and only 20psec on the 96k/24bit source.  In the Stereophile review of the BDP-1/BDA-1 due out next month they said the jitter figure on the BDP/BDA was below the threshold of their test gear.

About a year or so ago Stereophile did a test on a number of CD Players and the Bryston CD Player again had jitter at very low levels (98psec) and better than any of the others in the test but those jitter numbers were still higher than the BDA/BDP.

So unless I am interpreting things incorrectly it seems like the BDP/BDA  has lower jitter numbers than even the best of the CD Players?

james