Jump to content
IGNORED

Bryston BDA3 DAC & SACd over HDMI


Recommended Posts

James Tanner has demonstrated on Audio Circle that the new Bryston BDA3 DAC will play a DSD stream from an OPPO playing a physical SACD over HDMI. As an existing OPPO owner and SACD fan this seems quite a big deal.

 

What I' m surprised at, other than the fact that apparently the OPPO can output DSD and not just PCM over HDMI, is the fact that Bryston can offer this by simply by omitting any SPdif output.

 

Just wondering why, in the super-competitive world of DAC specs, no one has offered this before on a standalone DAC (as opposed to dedicated, and presumably Sony-licensed, SACD transport and DAC combos)?

Link to comment

The problem is cost of licenses for HDMI and HDCP.

 

I wrote a post a few years back with the costs at that time... http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/hdmi-input-dacs-12472/

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment

Another example of technology wasted and held back due to corporate bureaucracy. TMDS is by far a better method of sending digital data from point a to point b than USB. Problem is pulling the data out of the bitstream. Not a problem if greed wasn't a factor.

Link to comment
  • 2 months later...
James Tanner has demonstrated on Audio Circle that the new Bryston BDA3 DAC will play a DSD stream from an OPPO playing a physical SACD over HDMI.

 

As long as SACDs can't be ripped by any simple means, it won't matter. The format died a tragic death, stabbed by the paranoia of copy protection. I suppose some people find it is worth spinning a disc of DSOTM until "Time" stops.

Mac Mini 2012 with 2.3 GHz i5 CPU and 16GB RAM running newest OS10.9x and Signalyst HQ Player software (occasionally JRMC), ethernet to Cisco SG100-08 GigE switch, ethernet to SOtM SMS100 Miniserver in audio room, sending via short 1/2 meter AQ Cinnamon USB to Oppo 105D, feeding balanced outputs to 2x Bel Canto S300 amps which vertically biamp ATC SCM20SL speakers, 2x Velodyne DD12+ subs. Each side is mounted vertically on 3-tiered Sound Anchor ADJ2 stands: ATC (top), amp (middle), sub (bottom), Mogami, Koala, Nordost, Mosaic cables, split at the preamp outputs with splitters. All transducers are thoroughly and lovingly time aligned for the listening position.

Link to comment
As long as SACDs can't be ripped by any simple means, it won't matter. The format died a tragic death, stabbed by the paranoia of copy protection. I suppose some people find it is worth spinning a disc of DSOTM until "Time" stops.

 

FYI, audiophile labels like MoFi, Analogue Productions, Audio Fidelity and dozens of classical labels continue to release new SACDs. To date there have been more than 10,000 titles released on SACD, and counting...

 

And BTW, the point of Bryston's HDMI input is that you don't need to rip anything onto computer. As long as your SACD player has an HDMI output, you can still take advantage of the outboard D/A conversion.

Link to comment
FYI, audiophile labels like MoFi, Analogue Productions, Audio Fidelity and dozens of classical labels continue to release new SACDs. To date there have been more than 10,000 titles released on SACD, and counting...

 

And BTW, the point of Bryston's HDMI input is that you don't need to rip anything onto computer. As long as your SACD player has an HDMI output, you can still take advantage of the outboard D/A conversion.

 

Argh, it's Bryston's HDMI is what we don't need.

Like normal CD, SACD players still suffer significant jitter issue and orher bad stuffs due to mechanical limitations and error correction. Ripping SACD and play from computer would yield better result in general.

 

There was a thread that there is only one SACD pressing plant left (thus even more increased price of SACD). Even vinyl is bigger than SACD at this point.

Link to comment
Argh, it's Bryston's HDMI is what we don't need.

Like normal CD, SACD players still suffer significant jitter issue and orher bad stuffs due to mechanical limitations and error correction. Ripping SACD and play from computer would yield better result in general.

 

There was a thread that there is only one SACD pressing plant left (thus even more increased price of SACD). Even vinyl is bigger than SACD at this point.

 

Despite the "mechanical limitations and error correction" my Esoteric SACD player leaves any computer audio I've heard stone dead on SQ.

 

As for the "increased price" of SACD, can't say I've noticed. I'm buying lots of SACDs at the moment and generally paying around £8 a disc- half to a third of the cost of the exact same recording on DSD download (where downloads are available that is).

Link to comment
Despite the "mechanical limitations and error correction" my Esoteric SACD player leaves any computer audio I've heard stone dead on SQ.

 

As for the "increased price" of SACD, can't say I've noticed. I'm buying lots of SACDs at the moment and generally paying around £8 a disc- half to a third of the cost of the exact same recording on DSD download (where downloads are available that is).

 

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but what is the difference between the Esoteric k07 and k07x?

 

"The function of music is to release us from the tyranny of conscious thought", Sir Thomas Beecham. 

 

 

Link to comment
I don't mean to hijack this thread, but what is the difference between the Esoteric k07 and k07x?

 

They look identical, but both on spec and in sound are significantly different.

 

Spec-wise , x has different transformer, different AK 4490 DAC chips (and 4 of them rather than 2), DAC now accepts DSD (64 input on co axial and up to 256 on USB) and does 8x rather than 4x upsampling on PCM. AFAIK the x no longer has volume control and so I guess can't be used direct to power amp.

 

To me they also sound quite different - the K07 sounded very refined and quite close to my Hugo SQ-wise, but was noticeably "polite" and bass-light, what some might call "thin". By comparison, the K07x has more bass, a more solid and 3d soundstage and seems to retrieve more detail, for a quite full-on exciting sound. Having heard both at some length, I suspect that this is precisely what Esoteric set out to achieve in reworking the k07 to the x.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...