Please read the thread. This was addresed earlier. Larry meant to write "Apple-formatted disks," not files and I missed the error.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

You know JazzFan, I grow weary of you abusing our hospitallty. Yes, you have every right to criticize what we do and I have no problem with you doing so. But when you write "And the money keeps flowing" you cross a line. No, the money "doesn't keep flowing." In the past 18 months, several manufacturers have canceled their advertising because of what they perceive as negative coverage in Stereophile, with a correspondingly negative effect on the magazine's bottom line. If you really believe that my editorial decisions and our coverage is influenced by advertising dollars, then please, stop reading the magazine and stop posting to this forum.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

How would the Beatles dongle sound on this? I mean you can just plug something like that into the front USB port, right?

There was enough information in the review for the majority of posters to this thread to react very negatively to the product for numerous reasons.  I'd say that's a pretty good review.  Certainly told me what I needed to know about this product.  YMMV

RG

Rereading the thread, I think almost everyone misunderstood what the BDP-1 is supposed to be. In a panel discussion at the 2009 RMAF, I said that  the computer as a source of high-quality source of music would not become universally accepted until the nerd factor was eliminated, when people would no longer have to get in touch with their inner geek to get the best from computers for music or even do it at all. Bryston's BDP-1 is a turnkey solution intended to address that fact. Its owner need know nothing about networks, WASAPI, kmixer, Coreaudio, etc, to be able to get it to operate reliably as a high-quality source.

And with respect to all the request for comparisons and sound quality, it is a _digital_ source. The only relevant questions are 1) are the bits it outputs the same as those in the file? To which the answer is yes! And is that datastream of sufficiently low jitter not to degrade the output of the DAC to which it is connected? And the answer to that is also yes!

Both answers were offered and explored at length in the review, so I can only assume that those carping about our findings are more concerned with showing off how much they think they know than in any exploration of what the BDP-1 has to offer. Enough of the chest-beating, guys. This product isn't aimed at geeks, it is aimed at real people who don't want to become geeks merely to enjoy their music files with the highest possible quality.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

I did not want to react negatively to the product. My problem was with the review...I still do not know enough to evaluate the product as it was not compared to anything I do know or anything similar. All I could say was that it was expensive, comlicated, lacked a remote, and was well made. Follow up with comparisons with existing product like comuter front ends with good audio software might be in order.

JA, about this...

That is the exact opposite of what I got out of the review...it spoke of a $350 remote it did not come with. Her is a partial list of other stuff needed to get it to work

Interconnect, router, USB hard drive, USB flash drive, file converter software, file rippng software., a CAT5 patch cable..

It spoke of frequent contact with tech support, needed firmware updates, a BIN file that was needed, the need to visit their website for basic info (which means you still need a computer to make this thing work), an iPhone to drive source selection...After all that it concluded with

"The bryston BDP-1 is simple in function and purist in design'....

That is hardly a simple operation...it is, in fact, infinitely more complicated than any computer based front end I have encountered and I am seriously computer challenged.

I bought Pure Magic software for my iMac and had it up and operating in 15 minutes (and sounding great in my system). I just downloaded the J-River software for eval on my PC's (not dedicated music front ends) and again, it took 15 minutes and worked exactly as advertised without problem or the need for more gear.

At the absolute least the review should have advised Bryston to put every single bit of data needed to make their machine operate in an actual users manual placed in the box and a list of other gear needed to use the thing. It read like the reviewer had to figure this all out for himself.

I strongly disagree that anythng definitively can be drawn from the review about the box being reviewed beyond what I, and others have noted. A follow up is really needed..a follow up comparing this device to what it will be compeating with, computer based front ends, not CD or DVD players.

I also strongly disagree that any sort of overt scheme was in play to either protect or push the product or the manufacturer...I simply think the direction of the review was misplaced. I was left with far more questions than I had answered. Looking at the picture on the cover, I thought this would operate more like a CD player but instead of a CD going into a tray, a flash drive with music sourced from a Computer and computer program like Pure Music, would go into a USB slot. Like a CD player, the only connection needed would be a cable to get from the device to an outboard DAC....Boy was I wrong.

Is the same true for HiFi New and HiFi Choice or maybe some people think this is a good piece of hardware from a reputable company? Personally I've already stated that I find this a transitional piece that will have a short life span but which will appeal to those who are computer and network phobic. Really I think you should have a cup of tea and calm down. Your religious anti-Apple and pro Flac rants are silly. There is a place for the Bryston, there is a place for ALAC and there is a place for Hawk, Bird and Lester. One is not necessarily better than the other. Not every player is for me or you but might be for others. Just because a piece of equipment doesn't meet your needs doesn't mean that someone was paid for a good review.

JIMV beat me too it. We'll never see eye to eye on politics, but hey, audio can join anyone I guess. I was about to paste his exact quote and go on to say pretty much everything he wrote.

So John, to be clear, I don't think this has anything to do with how Jazzfan sees it. I don't think it's about pandering, but I DO think the reviewer is about five years behind the times with what one should expect from a machine like this. In fact, assuming he too reads Stereophile, he'd know there are many better products similar to it out there already. You yourself have reviewed several I think. Maybe not exactly like it, but I questtion if anyone needs somehting like this actually, at least as it's configured now.

I use computer audio BTW, not for my main sytem, but for secodary setups in the house. I can't see why I'd ever give up the great UI I uses now in favor of this box. If I wanted better quality it'd be simple to add an outboard converter my my laptop or PCs to go to my receivers.

Dumbing a product down to the point of a car radio is not innovation. This is not how and why Apple's products make it so popular, though they do sometimes simplify or limit some advanced user control. It's why I won't use their computers and laptops, becasue I am an advanced user and need soemthing different especially for my work. But it IS why I own an iPhone, several Ipods and lust after the iPad. By your logic if one wants a "simple" non geek phone you should go get the oldest model available. One that calls only and tells you the date and time.

Seriously? That's your take on why computer audio isn't popular in the high-end? It's not dumb enough yet? The same people who baby multiple tube products, can set up $5k cartridges on $15k turntables, and rewire the house for their systems are too simple-minded to figure out a few wires and routers to add to their systems? Whether it's a Mac or PC, home networking today is no more complicated than setting up a home theater, or growing a garden for that matter.

My point with the review, again, is that the reviewer makes so many excuses for something so obviously not user friendly, which has very limited capabilities, limited connectivity, is slow, and takes away basically all the progress computer audio has made in terms of interface. It's like taking 10 steps back for the 2 steps forword in build quality. I truly cannot see how is this better than setting up a $300 netbook, a seperate wireless NAS hard drive and having it stream out the data via USB to any number of digital converters that have been favorably reviewed before? You can say all the readers are wrong, but maybe you should ask yourself if you guys are the ones who aren't getting it.

No, you were not wrong. That's the basic mode of using the BDP-1 and I thought that was made clear in the review. Plug a flash drive carrying the files you want to play into one of the USB ports on the front panel or a large hard drive with your entre libary into one of the USB ports on the rear panel and you are good to go.

The issues the reviewer had with updating the player's firmware have all been addressed by Bryston, as was also pointed out in the review. Our policy is always to be open about such problems; in this case, perhaps it would have been best to keep quiet. :-(

Other issues, such as ripping CDs and networking and how you get your music files on to a USB drive, are generic in nature and not exclusive to the BDP-1.

As I said, the BDP-1 is a turnkey solution for those who do not want to get in touch with their inner geek to be able to play music files.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Flac is a totally FREE open source format. ALAC is a highly proprietary, closed source and not free, as in Apple charges a licensing fee to hardware manufacturers, format. And so flac is BETTER than alac. And the BDP-1 is an over priced BRICK!

By not assigning the review of the BDP-1 to a more qualified reviewer and by not providing any sort of comparisons with other digital audio players capable of playing files from a hard or flash drive, such as the Squeezebox Touch, the Oppo BDP-83 or the WD TV Live Plus, to but a few of the many products currently available, I feel that it was Stereophile that was abusing the reader's hospitality. By the way the WD TV Live Plus retails for around $100 and outputs either analog or digital.

So if I retract my statements regarding advertising dollars will you apologize to us readers for running such a poorly conceived review?

Yes FLAC is open source but it isn't any better than ALAC besides that fact. Other than that it is a religious debate.

And again it isn't about what I want or you want or Jim wants, it is a what a sector of the buying public wants. I think the bigest issue for those who buy this player will be trying to figure out how to move their music to the flash drive to play them on the Bryston.

No it's not a "religious debate" it is a debate about control and money, as in Mr. Jobs and Apple want absolute control because with absolute control comes the ability to charge as much money as they want.

With flac I am assured that no one will ever impose a fee for the ability to play the files, whether that fee is charged directly to me or indirectly to me via the increased cost of the equipment I use to play back the flac files.

I am not interested in bargaining with you, Jazzfan. If you sincerely believe that my editorial decisions and the magazine's content are affected by advertising dollars, then you have no place as a Stereophile reader or a member of this forum. If you do not believe what you said about the relationship between the magazine's content and advertising dollars, then you are probably more interested in generating flames than light.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Yes I'll freely admit that I am often a very big pain in the ass and it's fine with me if you don't want to bargain with me. Now you've dealt with the your wounded pride with respect to the editorial pureness of Stereophile but you still have not answered the questions raised throughout this thread regarding why this review was so filled with very large and gaping holes.

Just to clear the air since you seem to think that I just take it as a given that Stereophile's editorial decisions are affected by advertising dollars I'll run through my thought process on this issue.

1) The BDP-1's main processing unit seems to be the Juli@ soundcard and yet no mention of how this $200 computer sound somehow came to be worth $2000.

2) The BDP-1 for all intents and purposes is operating as a purely digital device, as in there is no analog audio section anywhere in the unit.

3) A digital audio file is nothing more than a data file and the BDP-1 is not doing any processing of the digital audio, it is simply reading the file from either a USB hard or flash drive, placing that file into a buffer and then sending the digital data stream to an external DAC.

4) There are many other devices which can do exactly what the BDP-1 is doing, i.e. sending a digital data stream to an external DAC, and yet no comparisons to any of these many other options and devices was even mentioned.

So based on the above list I applied the famous logic of Mr. Sherlock Holmes, which goes something like this: eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

So what can be eliminated from the above list?

The first item can't be eliminated since this issue as still not been addressed.

The second item can be eliminated since the review does not contradict this statement.

The third item is either true or it's not. If it's not true then my understanding of all things digital must be wrong and the BDP-1 contains some type of digital magic potion which allows it somehow magically improve the 1s and 0s of the digital data stream to make them more musical. If this is the case, by all means, please explain how this is possible.

And finally the fourth item cannot be eliminate since comparisons have yet to offered.

Okay so I looked at what I perceived as the facts and decided that either the BDP-1 possesses some kind of magic or Stereophile was blow smoke at its readers. Since I'm 100% certain that there is no magic involved that left me with "Stereophile was blow smoke at its readers".

Now why would Stereophile do such a thing? To answer that we need to run through another set of possibilities such as:

1) Stereophile's editors and writers don't know or understand the first thing about computers and digital audio files, aka digital data files.

2) Stereophile does know quite a lot about computers and digital audio files, aka digital data files, but is choosing to distort these issues for some reason or other.

Since I know that the first item is not true I went with the second item.

Now why would Stereophile do such a thing?

So I thought maybe it's the advertising dollars that these high end equipment manufacturers give to Stereophile and if these manufacturers are going to try to sell way over priced pieces of equipment to Stereophile's readers what better way is there to that than by having Stereophile in on the deception.

So please JA explain to me exactly where is this above reproach editorial policy when it can not even say that a buck naked emperor has no clothes? Because if it's not the money then maybe it's just gross incompetence.
 

All I wanted to know is how this thing works/sounds compared to other computer based front ends!

Good.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

You know John, setting aside Jazzfan's rants for a moment, I feel like there have been many legitimate questions, points and complaints stemming from this review, and honestly I don't think you have bothered with almost any of them. Sure, you don't have to, but you decided to jump in and defend the piece so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little more.

At the very least, it seems reasonable to expect something from you along the lines of "Hey, you guys bring up a lot of points that clearly didn't get addressed in the article. Maybe we could do a follow up." Or... "let me look into a few of these things." But instead you are blaming the readers for having a problem with the device (as presented and reviewed).

You can say that we are all missing the point of what this thing is, but that's really not how most people's questions and critiques are being worded. We do get what the company says it is. We're just baffled by the cost and backwards user-functionality for somehting that does so little.

Very well stated and without any of my over heated ranting. Thanks!

I disagree with Jazzfan's tone/attitude but not with the content of his critique. I was disappointed by this review, precisely because I generally feel that Stereophile reviews are very good. This one was not. 

JA, you yourself intimated that bits are bits, and that any DAC with good Jitter rejection should sound the same regardless of the digital source. So why pay $2000 for it? That's a good question that isn't answered by the review.

Also, perhpas some Stereophile readers are luddites, who need a "turn-key" solution (not that a $600 Mac mini isn't one). But many of know *do* how to use a computer, and we are part of the readership as well. If we want to bring more young people into the hobby- we need to work on the computer audio reviews!

Okay.

Okay. Here's what you get (and please note that judging a product's price by the fact that it contains a $200 soundcard is misguided).

The Bryston BDP-1 is: A plug'n'play, well-made product from an established high-end audio company with a reputation for customer support; A digital file player that requires no computer expertise on the part of its user, other than the usual skills in being able to copy files from one disk drive to another; A file player that will output a bit-perfect, low-jitter datastream to the user's own D/A processor; A file player that, unlike the Squeezebox Touch that has been mentioned in this thread, will correctly handle files with sample rates up to 192kHz and bit depths up to 24; A file player that can easily be controlled and have its files browsed from the listening position with an iPad or iPhone etc.

Is this package of features worth $2000? That has to be a personal decision and obviously the majority of posters to this thread feel the answer is no. However, I am told that the BDP-1 is selling at a faster rate than Bryston anticipated, which suggests that there has been an unfulfilled need for a product like the BDP-1. And as I said earlier, the major obstacle to the computer becoming the de facto source of high-quality digital audio for many people is the need to tweak and fuss over the computer in order to get what the Bryston offers out of the box: bit-perfect playback from as wide a variety of file formats as possible.

In which case the BDP-1 isn't aimed at you. I don't see why that is a problem or invalidates our review of the BDP-1.

I am not sure I get your point. What kind of computer audio reviews would attract younger readers?

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

John, please...Wake us up when you can buy real music in this format in any quantity.....

RG

After seeing the smoke above from a distance , I went back and carefully reread the review . I don't see what the problem is , the review was insightful  , well written  and exposed the BDP- 1 for what it was , or wasn't ,  and the price did not seem unreasonable to me , not when compared to offerings by others .  It's got me wondering if this would be a good time and place to dive into hard drive music . 

            Regards  Tim

Ones that, instead of being aimed at people who are too scared of or unfamiliar with basic computer functioning, are aimed at people who have used computers for *everything* for the *entirety of their lives!* Anyone who can use itunes on a mac can export bit perfect 24/96 data.

Also, JA; tone is admittedly very hard to read via text only, but I am sensing a great deal of defensiveness from you regarding this review. So the forum folks didn't like it, so what. The fact that we all read it and care enough to challenge it and your editorial decisions with regard to it should be, in my opinion, a cause for pride in your publication (a subscription for which I gladly pay).

Okay, what specifically should we be reviewing that we are not currently writing about? Note that I regard such questions as what routers to use, what computers, how to set up a home network, etc as being beyond Stereophile's mission.

A quick FAQ, which has all been published in the magazine: The answer to the question "what bit rate should I set my MP3 encoder to?" is don't use lossy compression at all. The answer to the question "what lossless codec should I use" is FLAC on the PC, ALAC on the Mac (with the caution that you can't go back from 24-bit ALAC to uncompressed formats without chopping off the bottom 8 bits). The answer to the question "what uncompressed codec should I use" is AIFF, which supports metadata tags and cover art, not WAV, which does't. The answer to the question "which player software should I use," is whichever on you like the interface and tags best (though J River Music Center seems to be emerging as the front runner in the Windows world). For ripping, use Exact Audio Copy, dBpoweramp, Max, all of which can be used in an error-correcting mode to guarantee bit-perfect rips (better than a CD player).

And in response to your statement "Anyone who can use itunes on a mac can export bit perfect 24/96 data," my experience has been that not everyone realizes that iTunes will not change Coreaudio's sample rate to match that of the file unless you exit the program, manually change the sample rate in AudioMidi set-up, and relaunch iTunes. If you don't do that you get degraded sound quality. Art Dudley will be reviewing the Amarra, Decibel, and Pure Music Mac front ends for iTunes, all of which address that issue (and more) in our July issue.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

The same argument was made when the CD was launched, that "the music _I_ want is only only avalable on LP."  So far, only Linn, HDTracks, Reference Recordings, and 2L are offering 4Fs files, ie, recorded at 176.4kHz or 192kHz. But these are early days. The point is that in this respect the Bryston BDP-1 is future-proof, the SB Touch isn't.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

for reviewing another computer based product. I really appreciate reviews that focus on this part of the hobby.

Trey

The money is an ancillary issue...No one denies Bryston makes a top flight product. I wish I could afford their DAC. The problem is in its list of capabilites compared to ease of use...and then compared for sound quality to other devices that do the same thing. It is (regardless of the case you make for simplicity) complicated in the extreme as evidenced by the host of extra stuff needed to get it to work, still requires a computer to do things from read the operators manual to copy files to flash drives, to updates, has a very unsat user interface and, as your post notes, 'can be easilly controlled....from the listening position with (wait for it) an iPAD (computer at over $500) or iPhone (another few hudred).

Your first paragraph defines my iMAC with Pure MUsic Software exactly (and here the money comes in) at half the price but with an infinitely more user friendly user interface.

I canot tell if the thing is worth the money simply because no one reviewed it against anything like the competition out there. For all I know, the box does sound better than than my digital front end....or, my digital front end sounds better than the box....who knows, which is why I started the thread.

As others have noted, the magazine normally compares and contrasts in its reviews...in this one they didn't,  leaving me wondering.

I have been asking about how this sounds/compares to an Imac/Pure Music front end. Just thought I'd note Pure Music just did a major (and free) update to version 1.8a which raises the bar a good bit for this device to meet before one can say it sounds better than this combination at the least.

I think the issue was apple formatted DISCS not files.  completely different thing but easy to mix up.

I don't want to listen to music from a computer- I work on a computer way too much during the work day, and it drains.  If it's neccessary to transfer or burn files, I want to be away from it ASAP when listening seriously.  I don't like creating playlists, or interacting with the keyboard and mouse to access music, looking at a LCD near my stereo, etc.  Call it an aesthetic consideration.  My HDTV also has no place in my listening room. 

Moreover, my iTunes account was just hacked a few days ago, and I lost quite a few bucks in credit, as well creating a mess of my limited purchase history.  The resultant 'customer service' I experienced from Apple (and Microsoft in other other previous issues) has convinced me that my aversion to computers (and music brokers) will continue for a long time. 

I could see myself buying the Bryston if the funds were available.  I can see many older, non-computer types doing the same.  Just because a product doesn't fit the mainstream audience 'correctly', doesn't mean a niche-market need can't be created and met. 

Hello Folks

After reading this i have to jump in. I own the BDP and partner it using a BDA dac. The thing that seems to be dogging the BDP here is it's (non) user - friendly functionality posts. There appears to be a lot of comparisons to a computer streaming audio. The BDP doesn't stream. This really isn't an outreach of a computer but more of an upgrade to a dac. IOW its more a hifi component than a computer interface. 

I was initially chilled about the BDP when i learned that i could not hook up my laptop in more conventional way. I was very apprehensive to the bdp's method of playing hi rez or redbook files.  It wasn't until i got one on loan that i was able to see how the thing is used and  how great my music files sound. You need to get it home and operational before it makes sense as an audio component. I know this because i felt the same way as many posts here at first. Got one home and i bought it.

Luddite - : one of a group of early 19th century English workmen destroying laborsaving machinery as a protest; broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change

— Luddite adjective

Without the luddite's where would the manufacturers of ultra expensive cables carrying digital signals be? By "cables carrying digital signals" I am referring to USB, coax digital and HDMI cables.

For the luddite approach:

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Best-USB-cable-use-between-computer-and-dac

and for the sane, well informed, no b.s. approach:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385272,00.asp

Now what approach do you think Stereophile will adopt?

Not sure what hdmi has to do with the bdp?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385272,00.asp

Unless you hoping Stereophile turns into a mag that hosts nothing but generic sounding HT crap. Hopefully they will remain in your luddite category.

That partcular brand of mummery is Alchemy

Definition of ALCHEMY

1

: a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life

2

: a power or process of transforming something common into something special

3

: an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting

— al·chem·i·cal also al·chem·ic adjective

— al·chem·i·cal·ly adverb

Nice anesthetic reponse. Need to lay down now....yawn.

Hahahahhhahhhhahhhahhhhahhha, yr such a child.  I hope someone replaces you with a robot.  (Preferably just a robotic arm that goes up and down a lot...)

I've worked in IT SaaS and computer sales for years, Jimv.  I have connectivity, the set up, and I have a great source for pricing on equipment as well.  It is merely for personal reasons that I don't like involving my office with my listening room.  I can walk a few feet to interact with my stereo- the exercise is good.  Is that okay for you, my petty, little writing buddy?

How would anybody be a Luddite if they are auditioning, buying or reading a review of a modern audio product like the Bryston?  They aren't.  They wouldn't be one even if they listened exclusively to LP.  Maybe 8 track gear.

You are such an over-arching, complete and utter ASS, every time you post to the forum.  And I don't give a fuck how anyone else wants you in here, for whatever assinine reasons. 

Keep scratching away at your mind to find SOMETHING to argue about though, Jimmy.   Yr a complete hoot- and my favorite windmill.

Children, why can't we all play nice. Jim raised some very good points regarding the printed review of the BDP-1 which have yet to be adequately addressed by the Stereophile editorial staff. The fact that he calls the BDP-1 over priced should not come as a surprise since it appears to be nothing more than a $200 soundcard in an $1,800 wrapper. Plus the soundcard's on board DAC/ADC is disabled.

As I stated earlier, thank goodness for luddites since they help keep the high end audio manufacturers going.

Well, you did write....."I don't want to listen to music from a computer- I work on a computer way too much during the work day, and it drains.  If it's neccessary to transfer or burn files, I want to be away from it ASAP when listening seriously.  I don't like creating playlists, or interacting with the keyboard and mouse to access music, looking at a LCD near my stereo, etc.  Call it an aesthetic consideration.  My HDTV also has no place in my listening room."

And Luddite does mean "one who is opposed to especially technological change"

I'll let readers decide if it applies...

I also was in the IT field, for a dozen years...I was the chief of purchasing for a multi state computer reseller. That does not make me a lover of the things but it also does not preclude me from noting the obvious. Computer front ends can and do sound amazing...pretending otherwise is simply silly.

love hypocrisy.  If you use Jim's definition, I am not a Luddite, and even if I was, I would be there protesting the loss of proper wages for manual labor required (which is really the only appropriate useage of the term anyways).  People have been misusing and appropriating the term recently to bad effect.  I have tons of current technology, and I use them everyday and sell them everyday as well. I never said computer front-ends can't sound well.  I just don't ENJOY using it in my listening room very often (from an ergonomic and aesthetic standpoint).  I also would rather spend the thousands I am reserving for future stereo purchases on analog, cables, DAC, and crossover upgrades in the next 2 years. That's my choice in the here and now.  I personally want to spend my money on a variety of upgrades I find value in, not Jim. So no, Jim is wrong.  I am not a Luddite by any stretch of the definitions, and his name calling on my personal opinion (unrelated to him or anyone initially) deserved another sound trouncing. 

Jim attacked me, and gave him what he deserves.  (That robot arm is dying to take your place any day- and I'm sure it whacks off better and more efficiently as well.)

You, Jazzfan, have accused the magazine with a lot of serious charges, which were way out of line.  JA has very clearly shown that you were rude, assumptive and utterly insulting.  I totally agree- you were reaching, to say the least.  Jim may raise some good points from time to time, but then he uses non-sequiturs to serve his faulty thinking, and then furthers that line of thought with ridiculous assumptions.  You do too.

To the direct point-  Do either of you really expect many OTHER old-fashioned audiophiles ("Luddites") NOT to purchase this product (in serving its purpose)?  Value is in the ear of the beholder, not for a select few to judge (and sentence) its worth critically.  If LG wanted to purchase the unit because he finds value in it- LET HIM! If you don't find value for whatever reason, others may...  And if they DID, they wouldn't be Luddites!  They choose new digital technology the way THEY want to, and they are still 'current' and being serviced by a proven company with 20-year warranties! 

There's another ideology that applies to your rigidity here- Fascism! Both of you have outlived your usefulness with invalid statements and false accusations.  Send in the robots!

You completely misread the point of my argument. The review left me, and apparently a lot of other readers, with a lot of questions and it did not compare the device with much of anything in a meaningful way. The issue was not in build quality, the need for a turnkey non computer to play audio files, or even price except as it would apply in any other situation or review where the product being reviewed is compared to other gear...

I stand by my posts. The unit, based soley on the review, appeared complicated, user unfriendly, and required the very thing it was trying to avoid, a computer, to get it to work. One cannot say the device is a stand alone non computer solution for the compter wary when one needs a compter to load files or even read the owners manual and require a lot of computer ancillary gear like drives to get it to do what it is designed to do.

And, again, how does it compare for sound quality and ease of use with computer front ends?

(as an aside....a bit of advice, you do appear to be a tad sensitive. When you combine that with what appears to be an overinflated view of the power and quality of your posts, well, lets just say more restraint and modesty might be in order)

I fully stand behind the charges I've made and will continue to make against Stereophile. Here's why: Stereophile serves the community of high end audio manufacturers much more than it does the community of audiophiles. And I can even prove it using JA's owns words.

Based on the above where does one place USB cables? Are they part of the computer world and thus "beyond Stereophile's mission"? Or are they a true audio component?

I place USB cables in the computer world since a digital signal goes in one end and the exact same digital signal comes out the other. Stereophile seems to place these cables in the audio component world. Here are two examples to show what I mean:

http://forum.stereophile.com/content/audioquest%E2%80%99s-diamond-usb

and

http://forum.stereophile.com/content/listening-85-page-2

Now several well known high end audio cable manufacturers have begun making some very expensive USB cables and therefore Stereophile, ever at the beck and call of the manufacturers, not only covers USB cables but heaps praise upon these over priced rip offs.

On the other hand if Stereophile served it readers it would clearly state that any properly functioning USB cable, even one costing less than $1, will "sound" exactly the same as any other properly functioning USB cable, even one costing more than $100.

And just how is judging a $2,000 device whose main functionality is provided by a (crippled) $200 soundcard misguided since the review and measurements did not compare the BDP-1 with a stock Juli@ soundcard.

As I explained, that is not necessarily the case. There can be audio files that need not be computer-sourced. Take the complete Beatles release of 24-bit FLAC files on a USB drive. You can just plug that USB drive into the Bryston and it will play. Same with Dean Peer's recent album, which was also released as 24/96 files on a USB key.

For sound quality, it is a low-jitter, bit-perfect digital source. As such it scores over computer-based solutions that rely on knowledge and work on the part of the user to get the same result. Regarding ease of use, as explained in the review, once its firmware had been updated, the BDP-1 was easier to use than a computer-based system.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Much as I would like to agree with you, that has not been our experience, I am afraid.

It seems obvious to point out that the "stock Juli@ soundcard" doesn't do anything at all without first having to be installed in a PC and having to be coupled with a music player program and having the PC's settings adjusted to give a bit-perfect output. Even then, it will not necesarily be low jitter, as this will depend on the PC used. What you are paying for with the BDP-1 is not just the Jui@ card, of course - it is the elimination of everything other than using the product and the confidence of buying a well-made, well-sorted product from a company with a good reputation for supporting its customers.

No, as you have repeatedly said, you would not buy the BDP-1. That is fine; it is not aimed at you, Jazzfan, and why should it be, given that you are a self-proclaimed computer audio expert? But because we give a positive review to a product that you personally would not buy, Jazzfan, does not mean we are either corrupt or incompetent, as you have accused us of. There are many people who are not like you and don't want anything other than a turnkey solution that doesn't demand they get in touch with their inner geek. That, for example, is why the Sooloos products have done well in the marketplace.

John Atkinson

Editor, Stereophile

Thank you JA for:

1) ignoring my nasty remarks

2) finally answering some of the basic questions about BDP-1

I would however like to know where in your experience has an expensive USB cable better a simple inexpensive USB cable?

On the BDP i originally used a generic out of the box usb cable. It came with my lexmark printer. I was using an Omega HD for files. That usb cable added so much noise and treble clammer that it infected my soundstage with a high pitch wale that reminded me of an old dot matrix printer pounding out copies. Every note seemed to have a high treble clammer sound to it. It was awful. I replaced that usb with a 7 mtr wireworld (base model) and it sounded normal and much better. 

This brings up a good point why computer savy folk get tripped up with high end audio playback. They are stuck in their own dogma that "bits are bits" . I agree mostly, infact i used that same generic usb to load up my Omega HD with files.  But there are two different conditions that exist in computer audio playback. Thats file loading and file playback. File loading - its true "bits are bits", when we talk about file playback its a different scenario. In file playback every thing we do infront of the amplifier gets amplified. I am talking more about choice of gear, including all front ends - computer, cd, or vinyl.  Everything gets amplified, every little nuance and subtlety of that gear gets amplified, including different usb cables.

This day and age what i see on the market are very sensitive high end audio gear.  I am currently using a Bryston 14Bsst/2 with a Response audio Max bella active pre. Just volume and input switch. I can't change cables, racks, and even placement of gear with out hearing changes. Its not a delusion but only a recognition of sensitivity to the kind of gear we have these days. 

Its the hobby, so if you are not hearing differences then its likely your gear isn't sensitive enough or enough resolution. Most HT recievers fall into this category. Its not a bad thing but just the reality of it.

The one thing most people miss is that at each end of the USB cable is a USB transmitter and receiver.

And thats where most of the trouble is (because there is no mandate for a either to be well designed for audio playback... but just be good enough to support the required computer function).

That is why some USB devices can work just fine off a 5M USB cable and other die after 1M (even with a well implemented USB cable)

So a poor USB cable will accentuate the affects of a poor transmitter and/or receiver but a better implemented cable might not overcome a poor transmitter and/or receive in relation to audio fidelity.

There is probably some middle ground here. Buy a Belkin USB cable 1st, before you go "boutique"... the free cables with computer components are just that ... free and cheesy... and buy one that is designed specifically for USB harddrives as these will be the best constructed.

Peter

Okay let's assume for a moment that USB cables do make a difference.

Now here is where I begin to get confused. Let's take two examples:

1) A USB cable used to connect an external hard drive to a computer would only be transmitting or transferring a digital data stream consisting of the digital file being copied or whatever.

2) Whereas on the other hand a USB cable used to connect an external DAC to a computer would be transmitting or transferring a digital data stream that is different from the original digital file in that data has been converted into a format that the DAC can now read.

For the second case, computer -> usb cable -> external DAC, I can understand how a poor quality USB cable might make a difference but the first case, computer -> usb cable -> hard drive, I really don't understand how the quality of a properly functioning usb would have any effect on the data being transmitted, i.e. either the data is an exact copy or it is not.

Now in the case of a external hard drive connected to the BDP-1 by a usb cable, isn't this exactly like the first example above, i.e. hard drive -> usb cable -> BDP-1 which in this case is acting like a computer, and the only thing being transmitted is a digital data stream consisting of the digital file. Therefore the claim that "That usb cable added so much noise and treble clammer that it infected my soundstage with a high pitch wale that reminded me of an old dot matrix printer pounding out copies." is either completely false, which I doubt, or just proof that the original usb cable was somehow faulty and not functioning properly.

Please understand that I am not looking to pick a fight but rather just looking for a little clarification. Anyway thanks in advance for helping to clear things up!

"if you are not hearing differences then its likely your gear isn't sensitive enough or enough resolution. Most HT recievers fall into this category. Its not a bad thing but just the reality of it."

If you don't see that the Emperor is fully clothed it is because your eyes aren't sensitive enough and that includes the eyes of most commoners. You can notice that all the royality see him in a splendid outfit. Obviously you seeing him naked is due to you being a commoner.