Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
I've been looking at the Bryston BCD-1 as a possible purchase. Does
anyone have any thoughts on its merits or lack thereof? One reviewer said that for people 'of a certain age' it would be a worthy contender for the title of 'The Last CD Player ou'll Ever Buy,' his point being that the Bryston is of superb quality and impeccable workmanship, thus relieving one of the necessity to ever buy another one. It's kind of expensive (~$3000 at my local stereo store in downtown Toronto) but it sure does appeal. Any other ideas? Many thanks in advance, Greg. -- Greg Grainger grainger(at)vex.net 'What a world of gammon and spinach it is, though, ain't it?' - Miss Mowcher |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:19 +0000, Greg Grainger wrote:
I've been looking at the Bryston BCD-1 as a possible purchase. Does anyone have any thoughts on its merits or lack thereof? =20 One reviewer said that for people 'of a certain age' it would be a worthy contender for the title of 'The Last CD Player ou'll Ever Buy,' his point being that the Bryston is of superb quality and impeccable workmanship, thus relieving one of the necessity to ever buy another one. =20 It's kind of expensive (~$3000 at my local stereo store in downtown Toronto) but it sure does appeal. =20 Any other ideas? =20 Many thanks in advance, Greg. Buy an SACD player. Edmund |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
Given a mark of $3000 one could get 20 $150 cd players, picking a number
out of the air, at best buy. If they lasted even only 3 years, 60 years would mean that great advances in all aspects of the manufacture art and new functionality and features would have likely improved. A product with the same price benchmark given inflation even with a long life from 60 years ago would find one at a great loss given the changes in that time span. That speaks of such products being the commodity items they have become. One consideration is that even now people are speaking of the cd going the way of the dodo. $150 will be all one needs to move into the next storage format, likely some net based storage scheme with local storage requiring only some minimal media box to feed an amp. GGetting all ones cd information unto another format is even now routine. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On 27 Nov 2009 16:22:19 GMT, Greg Grainger wrote:
I've been looking at the Bryston BCD-1 as a possible purchase. Does anyone have any thoughts on its merits or lack thereof? One reviewer said that for people 'of a certain age' it would be a worthy contender for the title of 'The Last CD Player ou'll Ever Buy,' his point being that the Bryston is of superb quality and impeccable workmanship, thus relieving one of the necessity to ever buy another one. It's kind of expensive (~$3000 at my local stereo store in downtown Toronto) but it sure does appeal. Any other ideas? Many thanks in advance, Greg. My beef with audiophile CD players is that beneath the fancy casework, and feeding the fancy DAC/audio stages, there's almost always a mass-produced CD mechanism costing just a few dollars. And as the mechanical part of the player it's the most likely to fail from use over time. And as a "generic" item we seem to be at the mercy of the Philips/Sony corporate attitude of making parts obsolete almost at a whim. Thus rendering the megabuck specialist CD player vulnerable to failure from the cheapest element. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:13:17 -0800, Stan Clitherdawes wrote
(in article ): On 27 Nov 2009 16:22:19 GMT, Greg Grainger wrote: I've been looking at the Bryston BCD-1 as a possible purchase. Does anyone have any thoughts on its merits or lack thereof? One reviewer said that for people 'of a certain age' it would be a worthy contender for the title of 'The Last CD Player ou'll Ever Buy,' his point being that the Bryston is of superb quality and impeccable workmanship, thus relieving one of the necessity to ever buy another one. It's kind of expensive (~$3000 at my local stereo store in downtown Toronto) but it sure does appeal. Any other ideas? Many thanks in advance, Greg. My beef with audiophile CD players is that beneath the fancy casework, and feeding the fancy DAC/audio stages, there's almost always a mass-produced CD mechanism costing just a few dollars. And as the mechanical part of the player it's the most likely to fail from use over time. And as a "generic" item we seem to be at the mercy of the Philips/Sony corporate attitude of making parts obsolete almost at a whim. Thus rendering the megabuck specialist CD player vulnerable to failure from the cheapest element. Not necessarily true. Many high-end players use the Esoteric mechanism (Esoteric is TEAC's high-end brand). This mechanism is all-metal, has larger motors with better bearings, and more precise and robust laser-sled than do most Phillips-based or Sony-based transports. My main problem with most High-end players is that they are mostly show with only a modicum of go, and I haven't noticed that most of them sound any better than most much cheaper models. In reality, I believe that most audiophiles (with more money than sense perhaps) buy on looks more than anything else. If there were truly a market for really high-end CD playback, there would be a market for component CD transports (no DAC). While this has been done, I don't know of any currently on the market, and it certainly shows that there is a singular lack of interest for this type of component. A buddy and I were talking yesterday about how one could possibly better a CD player like the US$23,000 DCS Puccini system for far less money. We decided that going with professional DACs and master clock systems could do the job. For instance, an Apogee Rosetta 200 DAC/ADC and an Apogee "Big-Ben" 192KHz master clock generator would be a good start for the electronics, but the transport is the stumbling block. There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? We couldn't find one. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
Sonnova writes:
There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? Perhaps a low-power PC with a decent soundcard? Lots of pro and semi-pro soundcards will take an external clock input, and produce digital output that you could feed to the DAC. You could easily stick enough RAM in the machine that you could rip a CD into a ramdisk (using an error-detecting ripper), then play it from there -- no moving parts necessary other than the CD drive, and that can be spun down while it's playing from RAM. -- Adam Sampson http://offog.org/ |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
Greg Grainger wrote:
Any other ideas? usually i like Brystom hardware. but this... it got a Philips L210 Drive and Crystal D/A. And many room inside. well, not really what me would expect from bryston. greetings from germany, -t. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote
(in article ): Sonnova writes: There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? Perhaps a low-power PC with a decent soundcard? Lots of pro and semi-pro soundcards will take an external clock input, and produce digital output that you could feed to the DAC. You could easily stick enough RAM in the machine that you could rip a CD into a ramdisk (using an error-detecting ripper), then play it from there -- no moving parts necessary other than the CD drive, and that can be spun down while it's playing from RAM. Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Nice try, though. It shows you've thought about it. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote (in article ): Sonnova writes: There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? Perhaps a low-power PC with a decent soundcard? Lots of pro and semi-pro soundcards will take an external clock input, and produce digital output that you could feed to the DAC. You could easily stick enough RAM in the machine that you could rip a CD into a ramdisk (using an error-detecting ripper), then play it from there -- no moving parts necessary other than the CD drive, and that can be spun down while it's playing from RAM. Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Nice try, though. It shows you've thought about it. Let me suggest that a trial of a computer-based player would be worthwhile, rather than just relying on theory. :-) I have quite a decent dedicated CD player and I reckon the sound from the computer is better. Mind you, the computer plays from RAM, so the transport issue is non-existent, and the digital signal is routed wirelessly to the optical input of the CD player and passes into the DAC there. Greg |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On 28 Nov 2009 18:10:25 GMT, Sonnova
wrote: A buddy and I were talking yesterday about how one could possibly better a CD player like the US$23,000 DCS Puccini system for far less money. We decided that going with professional DACs and master clock systems could do the job. For instance, an Apogee Rosetta 200 DAC/ADC and an Apogee "Big-Ben" 192KHz master clock generator would be a good start for the electronics, but the transport is the stumbling block. There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? We couldn't find one. Maybe a sample rate converter that accepts and external clock? Z systems I believe makes one. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
Sonnova writes:
A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Yep. You can take advantage of the tricks that software-defined radio enthusiasts have come up with to mitigate noise, though -- they care even more about it than audiophiles do! The nice thing about modern Atom/Ion-based motherboards is that they have very low power consumption, so you can use a linear PSU, electrically isolate the clock input and digital audio output, and mount the board in a sealed metal box for shielding. (I certainly wouldn't use a conventional PC for this sort of thing, though -- forget electrical noise, they're too *mechanically* noisy...) On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players In terms of playing the CD, that's probably OK -- you're not playing directly from the CD drive, so all you care about is its ability to read data accurately, and using existing error-detecting ripping software (which will read data multiple times to ensure it's got a consistent copy) makes that pretty straightforward. A good reason to avoid cheap drives is that the drawer mechanisms tend to be pretty flimsy, so they jam or fail to open reliably after a couple of years' use. I've had good experiences (several years and thousands of CDs) with midrange LG and Philips drives, though -- and being able to replace a failed drive with another commodity drive is handy. Thanks, -- Adam Sampson http://offog.org/ |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Nov 30, 8:55=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
snip Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has= too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform diffe= rent tasks, etc. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just boug= ht a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Nice try, though. It shows you've thought about it. A great many recordings these days are made on computers. How could they be suitable for making recordings but not for playback? Sound cards with 110 dB SNR are commercially available, not that this kind of requirement would be needed for real-world playback anyway. As for using a DVD burner, they may be inexpensive but most of them have extra error detection capability so ripping to memory or a hard drive may provide more accurate results than a simple CD player. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote (in article ): Sonnova writes: There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? Perhaps a low-power PC with a decent soundcard? Lots of pro and semi-pro soundcards will take an external clock input, and produce digital output that you could feed to the DAC. You could easily stick enough RAM in the machine that you could rip a CD into a ramdisk (using an error-detecting ripper), then play it from there -- no moving parts necessary other than the CD drive, and that can be spun down while it's playing from RAM. Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Nice try, though. It shows you've thought about it. Let me suggest that a trial of a computer-based player would be worthwhile, rather than just relying on theory. :-) I have quite a decent dedicated CD player and I reckon the sound from the computer is better. Mind you, the computer plays from RAM, so the transport issue is non-existent, and the digital signal is routed wirelessly to the optical input of the CD player and passes into the DAC there. Greg |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players lack all of these internal potential sources of interference? On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players as rule have anything better? It is not unusual to open what appears to be a stand-alone optical disc player or recorder and find a computer CD or DVD drive with a few mechanical adaptations to make it fit into a proprietary case. In many cases even the drive's IDE or SATA interface is used. I have an optical drive on my workbench that I use to load software onto PCs under construction that was removed from a stand-alone AV device. It has both a functional parallel ATA interface and master/slave/cable select jumpers. *Every* digital audio component that interfaces with the analog domain *must* contain circuitry where digital and analog signals pass within tiny fractions of an inch of each other - its called either the DAC chip or the ADC chip. As a rule, good computer audio interfaces are limited performance-wise by the performance of the converter and analog chips they contain. This is also true of any non-computer digital audio gear that interfaces with the analog domain. There is a specialized area of electrical engineering called "Mixed signal design". Expertise in this area is equally required whether the mixed signal device operates inside a computer or as a stand-alone device. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:30:15 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Nov 30, 8:55=A0am, Sonnova wrote: snip Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has= too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform diffe= rent tasks, etc. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just boug= ht a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Nice try, though. It shows you've thought about it. A great many recordings these days are made on computers. How could they be suitable for making recordings but not for playback? Sound cards with 110 dB SNR are commercially available, not that this kind of requirement would be needed for real-world playback anyway. As for using a DVD burner, they may be inexpensive but most of them have extra error detection capability so ripping to memory or a hard drive may provide more accurate results than a simple CD player. Yes, you are right, I make live recordings using a computer myself (although, to be honest, the A to D is done outboard of the computer and the interface with the computer is via FireWire.), but that wasn't the conversation. Someone suggested using a computer as a CD transport for a top-of-the-line CD playback system. That's what I was referring to, not the computer as a music server or even a recorder. There are other reasons, as well, why the computer wouldn't work satisfactorily as a transport. I don't know of any that have a master clock input, but a dedicated, stand-alone CD transport likely would. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players lack all of these internal potential sources of interference? Of course not, but they are generally better isolated than in the garden variety computer. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players as rule have anything better? That's what I am trying to find out. It is not unusual to open what appears to be a stand-alone optical disc player or recorder and find a computer CD or DVD drive with a few mechanical adaptations to make it fit into a proprietary case. In many cases even the drive's IDE or SATA interface is used. I've never seen that. Even if it is true, it doesn't alter the fact that few computer audio systems or EIDE/ATAPI (or even SATA) drives, for that matter have external master clock interfaces, but a stand-alone, dedicated audio CD transport should. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... A buddy and I were talking yesterday about how one could possibly better a CD player like the US$23,000 DCS Puccini system for far less money. Buy a computer and put a LynxTWO in it! We decided that going with professional DACs and master clock systems could do the job. It turns out that master clock systems provide no performance advantage. They are justified by the need for a central source of a good (but not necessarily exceptional) clock in a complex system. Many of the reliable anecdotes about sound quality advantages of including a separate master clock are based on the fact that they might solve a system-level problem, not that they are actually any better than the clocks in the better individual components. For instance, an Apogee Rosetta 200 DAC/ADC and an Apogee "Big-Ben" 192KHz master clock generator would be a good start for the electronics, but the transport is the stumbling block. There seems to be no pro CD transports that have inputs for an external clock. Interesting point. I see no need for such a device in a professional context. Any knowledgeable professional who was using a CD as a source for a critical project would simply rip the CD on his DAW and do all of the processing in the digital domain. If the application was live sound, first the sound quality requirements are less than critical with reasonable sound quality and operability and reliability being the critical requirements. Secondly, optical players are generally being supplanted by the use of more sophisticated devices such as media servers. For example while "professional grade" CD players were common, the number of comparable DVD players on the market is far less. The reason - far less market for them because the operational climate has moved on. For example, even in the relatively unsophisticated mid-sized church where I work, we play all pre-recorded audio and video media using a computer that is running a script under the control of a skilled, well-rehearsed operator. To conceptualize the script, think of a PowerPoint presentation with a lot of embedded media. That can be done, but a number of specialized programs with extended feature sets have evolved for the purpose, and are even being used in relatively small venues and gatherings. Nice thought, but does anyone know of a suitable transport? We couldn't find one. I think you're looking for an ultra-modern high end buggy whip. The professional market moved on. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players lack all of these internal potential sources of interference? Of course not, but they are generally better isolated than in the garden variety computer. That's not true at all. The power supply in *every* desktop computer is sealed in a full metal enclosure with bypass capacitors on all wires that pass in and out. Not so in audio optical disc players. The power supplies are generally open circuit cards, possibly with metal partitions around them, which sometimes extend up to but are not fully bonded to metal parts of the exterior chassis. Other than that, digital, analog, and power supply wiring runs on circuit cards and interconnecting wires and cables in either case. In general, high performance audio interface cards for computers are built on multi-layer circuit cards with ground planes top and bottom. One may or may not find this level of refinement in an optical player or other digitally-based component. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players as rule have anything better? That's what I am trying to find out. They don't, and actual performance measurements bear this out. The performance of well-designed computer audio interfaces and more traditional digital audio components is usually limited by the performance of the digital-analog converter chips. It's the same, either way. The best computer audio interfaces perform about as well as the best DVD-A and SACD players. It is not unusual to open what appears to be a stand-alone optical disc player or recorder and find a computer CD or DVD drive with a few mechanical adaptations to make it fit into a proprietary case. In many cases even the drive's IDE or SATA interface is used. I've never seen that. I've even scrapped DVD drives out of better stand-alone DVD player/recorders and used them in computers on my test bench identically to how computer DVD drives are used. Same interfaces, same connectors, same functionality. They never got off the test bench because the external mounting and fascia were incompatible with computers. But they are fine for loading software and other tests on computers being constructed or serviced. There is a trend to build digital audio components by marrying an actual computer board running Linux or other operating system as a controller and UI facility, with digital audio processor, converter and interface board(s). It is now common for even inexpensive consumer audio components to use computer storage devices including external USB flash drives, computer hard drives, computer optical drives, and flash chips, both SDHC and CF. In bench testing I find that none of this adversely affects technical performance. Last year I read that the market for consumer audio gear at all price levels that interfaced with iPods to exceed all other mid-fi and high end audio gear. What I see when I visit consumer audio stores now tends to bear this out. In one well-known big box store, I found it easier to find all-in-one systems with iPod docks than CD players! Note the many high end audio companies that are jumping on the iPod and USB flash drive as music storage devices. Even if it is true, it doesn't alter the fact that few computer audio systems or EIDE/ATAPI (or even SATA) drives, for that matter have external master clock interfaces, but a stand-alone, dedicated audio CD transport should. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:30:15 -0800, jwvm wrote Yes, you are right, I make live recordings using a computer myself (although, to be honest, the A to D is done outboard of the computer and the interface with the computer is via FireWire.), but that wasn't the conversation. Someone suggested using a computer as a CD transport for a top-of-the-line CD playback system. That's what I was referring to, not the computer as a music server or even a recorder. There are other reasons, as well, why the computer wouldn't work satisfactorily as a transport. I don't know of any that have a master clock input, but a dedicated, stand-alone CD transport likely would. As you seem to be saying in a sucessor post, stand-alone CD transports with external master clock inputs are rare. I don't know of any. I use a CD transport with a digital console via its digital input, but the console is resampling the digital input to synchronize the input data stream with its internal clock. I do have some external audio interfaces that are synched to the console's clock, but the CD player isn't one of them and there is no other provision for the digital domain other than the one that I am using. Computer audio interfaces with digital I/O can be synchronized to an external clock even if they don't have external clock inputs. Most computer audio interfaces have only one clock source for the entire card. If you connect its digital input to some external digital source, then the whole card is usually locked to the clock of that external source. As far as I know, the data from any digital audio source in the PC including a CD that is being played on the internal drive, is locked to that external source. This presumes that the PC is running Windows 98SE or any later versions of the Windows OS and that the output is clocked at 44.1 KHz. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players lack all of these internal potential sources of interference? Of course not, but they are generally better isolated than in the garden variety computer. Is that a guess, an assumption, or a conclusion based on actual data? Because I have off-the-shelf computer systems with integrated audio interfaces that have noise performance that equals or surpasses that of standa-alone, dedicated audio CD transports and DACs. How can that be, you ask, with all that clocking noise running around inside the computer? Well, one simple answer is that clocking is composed of frequency components FAR outside the audio bandwidth and is thus trivially easy to filter out. The largest coherent noice component is up around 18 kHz, and that's already about 103 dB below zero level. And that comes from the "ancient" analog monitor I have sitting on my desk, and EVERY audio component in the room exhibits it while the monitor is on. It is not unusual to open what appears to be a stand-alone optical disc player or recorder and find a computer CD or DVD drive with a few mechanical adaptations to make it fit into a proprietary case. In many cases even the drive's IDE or SATA interface is used. I've never seen that. Even if it is true, it doesn't alter the fact that few computer audio systems or EIDE/ATAPI (or even SATA) drives, for that matter have external master clock interfaces, but a stand-alone, dedicated audio CD transport should. If I understand what you are saying, you're claiming that computer transports are poor sources for clocks. You're partially right, but generalize it: ALL transports are poor sources for clocks. A playback architecture that uses the transport as a reference for timimg is a really bad idea. Not even high-end CD players do that (unless they stupidly designed, certainly a possibility in the high-end, alas). Rather, the DAC needs to be the clock reference, and the transport ONLY needs to be very loosely synchronized to it: only sufficient such that the DAC never runs out of data or overflows. Indeed, the synchronization between the DAC and the transport need be nothing more than "give me more data" alternating with "okay, that's enough for now". The typical high-end architecture where you have an expensive transport supplying the clock via the SPDIF stream to an external DAC is a patently stupid design. The "external master clock" architecture is not useful in a playbock only environment: doing it that way ensures higher susceptibility to jitter. Distributed master clocks ARE useful in studio scenarios, where you have to synchronize simultaneous multiple sources of digital streams. You simply don't have that scenario in playback. You have one source and one consumer. -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:15:02 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players lack all of these internal potential sources of interference? Of course not, but they are generally better isolated than in the garden variety computer. That's not true at all. The power supply in *every* desktop computer is sealed in a full metal enclosure with bypass capacitors on all wires that pass in and out. Not so in audio optical disc players. The power supplies are generally open circuit cards, possibly with metal partitions around them, which sometimes extend up to but are not fully bonded to metal parts of the exterior chassis. Other than that, digital, analog, and power supply wiring runs on circuit cards and interconnecting wires and cables in either case. It's not so much the power supply ITSELF, as it is the traces carrying all the clocks and the wires carrying the noise of the switching power supplies to components like the DVD/CD and HDD drives. All you need is an oscilloscope with an RF probe on it to see this. I've applied this test to many computers and they all exhibit lots of high-frequency hash. CD players and outboard DACs, not nearly as much. In general, high performance audio interface cards for computers are built on multi-layer circuit cards with ground planes top and bottom. One may or may not find this level of refinement in an optical player or other digitally-based component. While what you say is true, it's still a turkey shoot. But again, we were discussing using a computer as stand-alone CD transport, not as a complete player. On top of that, the CD transports in most computers are even cheaper than those used in current high-end CD players (hell, I just bought a new DVD burner with Lightscribe for my computer for US$29.00 fer heaven's sake!). Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players as rule have anything better? That's what I am trying to find out. They don't, and actual performance measurements bear this out. The performance of well-designed computer audio interfaces and more traditional digital audio components is usually limited by the performance of the digital-analog converter chips. It's the same, either way. The best computer audio interfaces perform about as well as the best DVD-A and SACD players. Again, we were discussing a computer as a stand-alone CD transport to use with an outboard DAC such as an Apogee Rosetta 200 used in conjunction with something like an Apogee "Big-Ben" precision master clock generator to try to match the kind of performance exhibited by a $23,000 DCS "Puccini" combo and do it for far less money. I asked this group if they had any suggestions for a drive, and somebody suggested a computer drive. I said that I had considered that and rejected it because a computer is likely to be noisier than a stand-alone high-quality transport - except that there don't seem to be any.... Also, I've not seen a computer drive that has a master clock interface for synching the drive with the DAC - which is the reason for the master clock module in the first place. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 06:15:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:30:15 -0800, jwvm wrote Yes, you are right, I make live recordings using a computer myself (although, to be honest, the A to D is done outboard of the computer and the interface with the computer is via FireWire.), but that wasn't the conversation. Someone suggested using a computer as a CD transport for a top-of-the-line CD playback system. That's what I was referring to, not the computer as a music server or even a recorder. There are other reasons, as well, why the computer wouldn't work satisfactorily as a transport. I don't know of any that have a master clock input, but a dedicated, stand-alone CD transport likely would. As you seem to be saying in a sucessor post, stand-alone CD transports with external master clock inputs are rare. I don't know of any. Correct, that's why I asked the question. There used to be several. TEAC once made a really fancy one with a balanced turntable platter which clamped the inserted disc and had was very high quality. Also, another maker (I forget who) made a stand-alone CD transport where the CD was belt driven (I'm not sure that this has any advantage - just reporting that there once was such a puppy and it was a stand-alone transport). I don't pretend to know what happened to that segment of the market but it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that such equipment is still available in Japan (you know how the Japanese are about avocational paraphernalia - of any kind!), but I have yet to find one. I would expect that with all of the renewed interest in outboard DACs due to the current interest in the music server end of the hobby, that someone would re-introduce such a device, but like I said, I've yet to find one. I use a CD transport with a digital console via its digital input, but the console is resampling the digital input to synchronize the input data stream with its internal clock. I do have some external audio interfaces that are synched to the console's clock, but the CD player isn't one of them and there is no other provision for the digital domain other than the one that I am using. Computer audio interfaces with digital I/O can be synchronized to an external clock even if they don't have external clock inputs. Most computer audio interfaces have only one clock source for the entire card. If you connect its digital input to some external digital source, then the whole card is usually locked to the clock of that external source. As far as I know, the data from any digital audio source in the PC including a CD that is being played on the internal drive, is locked to that external source. This presumes that the PC is running Windows 98SE or any later versions of the Windows OS and that the output is clocked at 44.1 KHz. What would be needed to approach the level of performance from the DCS Puccini and similar players is at least 96 KHz capability and preferably 192 KHz. Remember this is merely an academic exercise. I'm not looking to actually build such a puppy. My contention is that as well as the DCS Puccini player combo performs (on the bench), that this performance should be approachable (or perhaps even bettered) by using the correct professional-level DAC/ADC and a pro master clock (maybe even a rubidium clock from Antelope at only six grand!). The only fly in this ointment is the transport - or rather the lack of one. Now. before you come back with something about even the cheapest CD player being already perfect, let me interject that this exercise was prompted by a discussion about high-dollar players. There is no doubt that the aforementioned Puccini unit has much better bench performance than does any CD player I've ever seen. Jitter, Intermodulation Distortion, lack of spurious noise, etc, all measure head and shoulders above most anything I've seen one only has to lok at the results and compare them to lesser players (Stereophile, Measured Data, December 2009, pages 76 through 79). But I'm not necessarily saying that this performance makes the Puccini player SOUND any better than any other (I haven't heard it), I'm just thinking aloud here that one should be able to equal or better this bench-top performance using pro-gear for a lot less than $23000. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Nov 30, 11:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
snip =A0There are other reasons, as well, why the computer wouldn't work satisfactorily as a transport. =A0 I don't know of= any that have =A0a master clock input, but a dedicated, stand-alone CD transp= ort likely would. =A0 Why is the need for a master clock relevant here when the data can be ripped without errors to storage or RAM and then played back through a reasonable quality sound card? Your earlier response indicated that a computer was too noisy to be a good playback device. Now are you are saying that the drive has to work off of a master clock in order to provide audiophile quality? |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
"Greg Grainger" wrote in message ...
I've been looking at the Bryston BCD-1 as a possible purchase. Does anyone have any thoughts on its merits or lack thereof? One reviewer said that for people 'of a certain age' it would be a worthy contender for the title of 'The Last CD Player ou'll Ever Buy,' his point being that the Bryston is of superb quality and impeccable workmanship, thus relieving one of the necessity to ever buy another one. It's kind of expensive (~$3000 at my local stereo store in downtown Toronto) but it sure does appeal. Any other ideas? Many thanks in advance, Greg. -- Greg Grainger grainger(at)vex.net 'What a world of gammon and spinach it is, though, ain't it?' - Miss Mowcher It is a very good sounding cd player, backed by a very good company ... buy it, listen to it and enjoy it ... the only one you have to please is yourself ... |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:19:56 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:27:58 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote Well, I thought of that. But ultimately, I don't think so. A computer has too many sources of noise: Switching power supplies for several different voltages (+5, +12, -12); different clock signals divided to perform different tasks, etc. Do you seriously think that traditional optical disk players lack all of these internal potential sources of interference? Of course not, but they are generally better isolated than in the garden variety computer. Is that a guess, an assumption, or a conclusion based on actual data? Because I have off-the-shelf computer systems with integrated audio interfaces that have noise performance that equals or surpasses that of standa-alone, dedicated audio CD transports and DACs. How can that be, you ask, with all that clocking noise running around inside the computer? Well, one simple answer is that clocking is composed of frequency components FAR outside the audio bandwidth and is thus trivially easy to filter out. The largest coherent noice component is up around 18 kHz, and that's already about 103 dB below zero level. And that comes from the "ancient" analog monitor I have sitting on my desk, and EVERY audio component in the room exhibits it while the monitor is on. It is not unusual to open what appears to be a stand-alone optical disc player or recorder and find a computer CD or DVD drive with a few mechanical adaptations to make it fit into a proprietary case. In many cases even the drive's IDE or SATA interface is used. I've never seen that. Even if it is true, it doesn't alter the fact that few computer audio systems or EIDE/ATAPI (or even SATA) drives, for that matter have external master clock interfaces, but a stand-alone, dedicated audio CD transport should. If I understand what you are saying, you're claiming that computer transports are poor sources for clocks. No. I'm not saying that. I sure wish some of you guys would follow a thread from the beginning before jumping in and making unwarranted assumptions. I'm saying that in order for this scheme I was discussing to work with a professional grade master clock, the transport would have to have synchronous clock interface and computer drives do NOT, AFAIK, have that facility. If you know different, I'm all ears. You're partially right, but generalize it: ALL transports are poor sources for clocks. That's one reason for a master reference clock such as an Apogee Big-Ben or an Antelope rubidium master clock source. A playback architecture that uses the transport as a reference for timimg is a really bad idea. Not even high-end CD players do that (unless they stupidly designed, certainly a possibility in the high-end, alas). Rather, the DAC needs to be the clock reference, and the transport ONLY needs to be very loosely synchronized to it: only sufficient such that the DAC never runs out of data or overflows. Indeed, the synchronization between the DAC and the transport need be nothing more than "give me more data" alternating with "okay, that's enough for now". Yes, that's pretty much how I understand it as well. The typical high-end architecture where you have an expensive transport supplying the clock via the SPDIF stream to an external DAC is a patently stupid design. The better ones use a master clock (either on-board or outboard) that feeds that clock signal to both the transport and the DAC. The "external master clock" architecture is not useful in a playbock only environment: doing it that way ensures higher susceptibility to jitter. Distributed master clocks ARE useful in studio scenarios, where you have to synchronize simultaneous multiple sources of digital streams. You simply don't have that scenario in playback. You have one source and one consumer. So, you're saying that a master clock generator such as the one used in the DCS Puccini playback system is not necessary and not the reason why the ensemble exhibits such low jitter? I'm not trying to bait you, understand, I am truly trying to get some information. The Stereophile review of this outrageously priced ensemble indicates that the external master clock is one of the main reasons for this products sterling bench performance. My original speculation was that one could probably better this DCS Puccini and other high-end players with pro gear such as the Apogee "Rosetta 200" DAC/ADC and perhaps the Apogee "Big-Ben" precision master clock or the Antelope rubidium master clock (which, while it raises the price considerably, still manages to be MUCH cheaper than the DCS Puccini system). The stumbling block to all of this, and what has triggered all this discussion is that there seems to be no suitable stand-alone CD drives available any more to complete the ensemble. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:54:38 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Nov 30, 11:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: snip =A0There are other reasons, as well, why the computer wouldn't work satisfactorily as a transport. =A0 I don't know of= any that have =A0a master clock input, but a dedicated, stand-alone CD transp= ort likely would. =A0 Why is the need for a master clock relevant here when the data can be ripped without errors to storage or RAM and then played back through a reasonable quality sound card? Your earlier response indicated that a computer was too noisy to be a good playback device. Now are you are saying that the drive has to work off of a master clock in order to provide audiophile quality? Does no one read these threads before jumping in? I'm not going to repeat this entire thread to clue you in on what this discussion is about. I've done it two or three times already today. Google the group, find out what we're discussing and then come back and comment. Glad to have you. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Dec 2, 8:57=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
snip Does no one read these threads before jumping in? I'm not going to repeat this entire thread to clue you in on what this discussion is about. I've = done it two or three times already today. Google the group, find out what we'r= e discussing and then come back and comment. Glad to have you. Perhaps the problem here is that you keep changing direction. I was trying to reply to your reply to Adam Sampson where you stated that a computer was a poor means of audio reproduction because of noise and cheap optical drives. You may want to read Dick Pierce's posts carefully as to why drives with input clocks are a waste of money and provide no benefit when simply listening to a CD. As Dick points out, the extensive use of buffering in a competently designed CD player provides excellent quality in a very cost effective manner. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Ideas on Bryston's CD player?
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 20:29:11 -0800, jwvm wrote
(in article ): On Dec 2, 8:57=A0am, Sonnova wrote: snip Does no one read these threads before jumping in? I'm not going to repeat this entire thread to clue you in on what this discussion is about. I've = done it two or three times already today. Google the group, find out what we'r= e discussing and then come back and comment. Glad to have you. Perhaps the problem here is that you keep changing direction. I was trying to reply to your reply to Adam Sampson where you stated that a computer was a poor means of audio reproduction because of noise and cheap optical drives. Actually I said that a computer makes a poor stand-alone CD TRANSPORT, not a poor means of audio reproduction. You may want to read Dick Pierce's posts carefully as to why drives with input clocks are a waste of money I did. You might want read in my original posts what the exercise was about. It was replicating a $23,000 CD player with an outboard master clock using pro-level (instead of audiophile bling) equipment. and provide no benefit when simply listening to a CD. As Dick points out, the extensive use of buffering in a competently designed CD player provides excellent quality in a very cost effective manner. I don't doubt Dick at all. But again, there was a specific point to the exercise. And that point was to replicate (or even better) the bench performance of this DCS Puccini player using much cheaper (but nonetheless extremely high quality) off-the-shelf professional components. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bryston's ridiculous CD player | Audio Opinions | |||
Bryston's ridiculous CD player | Audio Opinions | |||
Any one got any ideas for best budget sat nav...? | Car Audio | |||
Need help, ideas... | Car Audio | |||
Ideas on a turntable | Audio Opinions |