Bryston SP3 Preamp-Processor

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

What do you mean "can't?" I think the correct word is "won't" and I hope it really means "won't yet."

What is the "problem" as you see it?

If the correct word is "won't" then I hope you are correct, but "can't" seems more likely as I would assume if it could be done, it would have already been done. It really dosn't make sense that Sony would not provide DSD in multichannel because they could patent this encoding method and license it out to other companies as they have done previously. Beta was unsuccessful primarily because Sony licenses it too late and JVC licensed its VHS technology in the beginning.

As far as the problem with multichannel DSD, I'm afraid that issue is above my pay grade, well over my head, and I don't understand the technical jargon as to why its hard to implement. Its like the professor told me when I asked the impossible to answer question. He stated in response that "if I knew the answer to that, do you think I would be working here."

[Stefan_DR3]

It would be a waste of their time, as their only real concern seems to be copy-protection. There is no need for DSD since HDMI can securely transmit hi-res PCM (uncompressed) audio in 7.1 channels. DSD and DVD-A are pre-HDMI inventions!

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by gbaby

If the correct word is won't then I hope you are correct, but can't seems more likely as I would assume if it could be done, it would have already been done. It really dosn't make sense that Sony would not provide DSD in multichannel because they could patent this encoding method and license it out to other companies as they have done on previously. Beta was unsuccessful primarily because Sony licenses it too late and JVC licensed its VHS technology in the beginning.

I do not know what you are talking about. There is no special coding for stereo DSD files (DSF or DFF) and those same file formats work fine for multichannel. I have couple of hundred of those now, so no additional inventions are needed. Interfaces include USB and HDMI.

As far as the problem with multichannel DSD, I'm afraid that issue is above my pay grade, well over my head, and I don't understand the technical jargon as to why its hard to implement. Its like the professor told me when I asked the impossible to answer question. He stated in response that "if I knew the answer to that, do you think I would be working here."

If one of my students asked this question, I would respond that he is not asking the right question. Sony's decision is based on their analysis of where the market is and, not incidentally, on the massive storage/bandwidth needs which are proportional to the number of channels. Availability of cheaper storage and faster downloads are the technological bottlenecks.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

... Availability of cheaper storage and faster downloads are the technological bottlenecks.

I must say that you have given me and the readers of this forum quite an education. While cheaper storage and faster downloads are the technical bottleneck, this issue will be resolved as it has been in the past. But, I have read that DSD is not the magic bullet for sound as it is the recording process, venue, mics, acoustics, etc., that play the most important role in recording quality. There are mediocre sounding DSD and mediocre sounding PCM. For you, a classical music lover, you are in heaven as most DSD releases as well as SACD releases were in classical although this is probably going to change with Sony's new DSD player. With me, though, and many others, the interest is in more poplular music as I am a child of the '70s. And, I like music from the '60, 70's and 80's, and its just not enough music in DSD for me to be conerned let alone enough information to declare DSD to be superior to PCM. To me, this is just another method of sqeezing more money from consumers for these company's music catelog and we buy into the hype. Is there emperical data indicating unequivically that all DSD recordings sound better than all PCM recordings? I think not. So, with state of affairs of DSD, and from the kind of company Bryston seems to be to me, I think it is unreasonable to want them to implement DSD in its products at this time. Executing DSD is too complicated to execute even for some audiophiles. When the dust is settled, then it will be time to act, maybe.

[Grit]

+1 for higher quality recordings, regardless of format.

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by gbaby

I must say that you have given me and the readers of this forum quite an education. While cheaper storage and faster downloads are the technical bottleneck, this issue will be resolved as it has been in the past.

Agreed.

But, I have read that DSD is not the magic bullet for sound as it is the recording process, venue, mics, acoustics, etc., that play the most important role in recording quality. There are mediocre sounding DSD and mediocre sounding PCM.

Of course, GIGO.

For you, a classical music lover, you are in heaven as most DSD releases as well as SACD releases were in classical although this is probably going to change with Sony's new DSD player. With me, though, and many others, the interest is in more poplular music as I am a child of the '70s. And, I like music from the '60, 70's and 80's, and its just not enough music in DSD for me to be conerned let alone enough information to declare DSD to be superior to PCM.

I am sure that issue of repertoire was a large part of Sony's decisions. The lack of mch program content for the mass market contributed, imho, to the lack of penetration of SACD, especially in MCH. So, despite my lack of interest in non-classical music, I would love to see more of it released in better formats since no medium can really succeed without an appeal to a large (dare I say mass) market.

To me, this is just another method of sqeezing more money from consumers for these company's music catelog and we buy into the hype. Is there emperical data indicating unequivically that all DSD recordings sound better than all PCM recordings? I think not.

Sorry, I think that is a foolish question. There are too many variables here to permit any absolutes.

So, with state of affairs of DSD, and from the kind of company Bryston seems to be to me, I think it is unreasonable to want them to implement DSD in its products at this time.

OK. I am not pushing them to do it.

Executing DSD is too complicated to execute even for some audiophiles. When the dust is settled, then it will be time to act, maybe.

Strange. First, it is not technically complicated to implement although it costs money and adds complication. Second, what dust? Bryston, does careful market analysis before making a product. They weighed the SACD question when they made the SP3 and, apparently, continue to monitor the market to see what changes they will choose to make. Seems quite reasonable to me.

And lest you think that I am riding a DSD hobby-horse, I am in favor of any format that will give me what I want: high quality and, of course, multichannel.

[Colekat]

The SP3 needs to keep up with the Jones'! The thought that Bryston is not trying to find a way to process DSD, with there vast exposure of hardware, they have a product that does just about anything audio/video there is to do, is not what I'm hoping to hear. This processor took so long coming to market, the architecture currently probably will not support the upgrades needed.
If I had to make the decision to buy a processor today, I would not buy an SP3 based on it's inability to process DSD. I love my SP3, but I have doubts about it's about it's long incubation to market, and therefore it's shortened lifespan. It will always sound great, but after hearing DSD, it's a tough exclusion to except.

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Hi Folks,

There are just too many unanswered questions about the 'versions' of DSD decoding (DSD 64, DSD 128, DSD 256, DSD 512, DSD Native etc.) needed going forward to commit to hardware and software requirements at this time.

We are still looking at a new USB module for the SP3 but I do not want to produce a product that will be outdated shortly after its release especially when it comes to in hardware (DAC's required).

james

[doggiehowser]

SACD DSD playback only requires 1xDSD.

The SP3 as I understand it does not have network or HDD playback or USB DAC capability that you would need to support the higher res files.

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Originally Posted by doggiehowser

SACD DSD playback only requires 1xDSD.

The SP3 as I understand it does not have network or HDD playback or USB DAC capability that you would need to support the higher res files.

Hi

I will check on that but the DAC's in the SP3 are the Crystal DAC's - same as the ones in the Bryston BDA-1 DAC which are capable of 192K/24Bit.

The main issue with the USB in the current SP3 is it is limited to 48K/16Bit resolution and we want to improve that to 192/24 going forward and want to look at DSD capability as well.

james