[Greg Grainger]

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

[Edmund[_2_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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.

[Stan Clitherdawes]

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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Adam Sampson]

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/

[Thomas R. Sareks[_2_]]

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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Greg Wormald[_2_]]

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

[Tardman[_2_]]

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.

[Adam Sampson]

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/

[jwvm]

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.

[Greg Wormald[_2_]]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

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 |
+--------------------------------+

[Sonnova]

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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[jwvm]

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?

[graham]

"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 ...

[Sonnova]

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.

[Sonnova]

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.

[jwvm]

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.

[Sonnova]

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.