TAS 194: Bryston BDA-1 and Audio Research DAC7 USB DACs

Two Revolutionary DACs

Products in this article:BDA-1

From the founding of this magazine, Harry Pearson did our industry a great service by establishing a reference: the sound of unamplified live music in a natural space. As a result, designers began to pay attention to such crucial sonic phenomena as soundstages, timbres, dynamics, and the localization of musicians. However, an unintended consequence of HP’s radical reference was that the industry became so wrapped up in recreating the sound of live music, it often paid less attention to the experience of hearing live music.

Listening to live music differs from listening to a recording, and not just in sonic terms. I find, for instance, that when I am at a live concert I can comfortably absorb and grasp new material on a first hearing. Yet when listening to a recording of new music, I usually need several playings to reach the same level of appreciation. Also, at a live performance an audience witnesses not only the physical but also the musical interplay between performers. In contrast, even very good-sounding audio systems often fail to convey the interplay that made a particular performance unique. And though stereo setups strive mightily to present a facsimile of the recording venue within our listening space, that is very different from the feeling of having a live venue—and its attendant acoustics—surround you. To cite one final example, consider how refreshed one feels after a live performance, as opposed to the fatigue that can result from even a short home listening session.

This dichotomy between live and recorded listening experiences began to occupy my noggin after I spent time with two new DACs from Bryston and Audio Research, the $1995 BDA-1 and $3495 DAC7, respectively. These components are, in my view, at the vanguard of a new digital era. Like the best analog systems, they deliver not only state-of-the-art sonics, but propel the listener right into the heart of performances. This is exactly what happens in the live listening experience. 

What these two DACs do is a bit difficult to convey because our industry has not spent decades establishing a vocabulary to describe the nature—as opposed to the sound—of live music. However, here goes. HP often used photographic terms to help readers, through visual analogies, understand his sonic descriptions. I will enlist another of the senses—taste. For those who have ever eaten truly sublime food, you know what happens: You put a bite in your mouth; at first, individual flavors assert themselves, some more urgently than others; then those tastes begin to intertwine, playing off each other; finally, they form an integrated whole that is in perfect balance and makes complete sense. The wondrous part about this experience is that it requires absolutely no effort on the part of the diner; the process washes over you, explaining itself as it goes, leaving you with nothing to do but enjoy and appreciate the artistry that made it.

This is also what happens during a live concert—just substitute instruments, notes, and musical lines for flavors. I submit that it is what should happen when we listen to an audio system. Unfortunately, most audio systems deliver the sonic equivalent of a heavy-handed stew. Flavors are inextricably mashed together, and sorting them out takes real work. This phenomenon is so pervasive that I believe most audiophiles do not even know they are hard at work. The system tells them “what” is happening musically, but the listener is left to fill in the “how” and the “why.” This is tiring!

The Bryston and ARC DACs reveal, Linn-style, the individual strands that make up the music’s fabric. But, as with tasting miraculous food, that is only the first step. They go further, allowing the listener to then hear how each instrumental line relates to the others, how they trade off, and why the composer wrote the music as he did. The same goes for the musicians themselves. Each has decided to play his line a particular way, yet each is simultaneously listening to his fellow musicians and making adjustments so his part fits and enhances the whole. Believe it or not, these DACs make all this plain as day.

Comments

Sam -- Tue, 08/04/2009 - 19:40

Mr. Alan Taffel
I have been following your reviews of Bryston BCD 1,  Bryston DAC 1, and Audio Research DAC.  Some of them getting many awards by you. You mention that the bryston makes even a budget transport sound near State of the art.  What budget transport did you use to test this and what transport did you compare it with? Also you mention that these DAC's outshine your reference CD playback, What is your reference CD player. Please comment on that....thanks.

Patrick (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 10:13

How does the PS Audio Perfect Wave unit compare to these units?

Oh no! (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 10:37

I'm dissapointed. 16bit USB transfer means that Bryston and ARC have thrown in something but does not know how to deal with it. Ayre and Wavelength for example, knows. They deliver 24/96 on the USB port with asynchronous transfer. And a bright sounding USB cable? Jitter I'd say. TAS should do better than this!

RobW (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 11:31

Erm...an electrical engineer with 22 years experience in areas ranging from radar systems engineering to mixed signal circuit design has no clue about a "bright sounding" USB cable.  Would anyone care to inform me about what that is? Are you suggesting a cable carrying digital data is emphasizing higher frequency audio content?  I'd really like to know how a passive cable carrying a DIGITAL signal could do such a thing since digital signal processing is required in such a system.
Let's be clear. The asychronous nature of the USB data transfer has nothing to do with what's clocked into a DAC. As an example which illustrates this in the extreme, the data recovered  from a CD is in effect asynchonous to its accompanying DAC in a CD player.  The original recording was done not only with an asynchronous clock but with one running in a completely different time zone than the playback system. 

W. McBride (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 11:49

It is great to see more of these type products however, such USB products like this should have been offered 7 years ago with the introduction of USB2 and/or the availability of audio drivers supporting 96/24 over USB/SPDIF.  Not to diminish these products, but why buy something on the bleeding edge of technology? Where is HDMI support for example? Any serious DAC in this product space needs HDMI support or an upgrade path for such support.
I agree with "Oh No" that it is incorrect to talk about a digital cable as "bright". Readers need to understand that if there are sonic differences between cables, it is the difference in the cable's inability to reliably transport digital information between the 2 respective pieces of equipment. Poorly designed equipment can also result in a situation where it can decode the signal from one USB/SPDIF cable better than another These DACs know if the digital bitstream is corrupted; it would be nice if they communicated situations such as high jitter rates so that users know they have this kind of problem and can correct it with a different cable, different cable routing, shorter cable, or marginal equipment.

jdrawn (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 15:46

 I agree completely with the folks who argued earlier that there is no way a digital cable can be "bright." It can function correctly, or not. If it doesn't function properly, then of course it won't work at all. Neither USB nor firewire cables have the slightest effect on the sound, regardless of audiophile claims to the contrary.

Oddio (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 20:36

Digital cables do indeed have sonic signatures. I have listened to both dull and bright cables. I wonder if you hear differences in analogue cables or perhaps your understanding of digital electronics needs to be rethought.

Anonymouse (not verified) -- Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:49

The analogue cable is subject to frequency based signal degradation since the transfer function is based in the frequency domain. i.e. higher frequencies have a higher impendance and more loss.
Digital signals pass or they don't, a 11000101011 is still 11000101011 at the other end of the cable if it worked correctly.
They're is no bright or dull in a digital transfer. if the transfer isn't working, you don't hear any sound.

1likeh1f1 (not verified) -- Fri, 08/07/2009 - 18:48

Dear Anonymouse:  I originally thought of digital cables the way you do - passing bits and bytes only.  However, I have come to understand that like any conductor, such interconnects and their terminations (i.e., XLR, S/PDIF, USB, HDMI, etc.) can pass along other "artifacts" such as RFI and can contribute to jitter, "pre-echo", etc. (and dither re: video).  Also, these different kinds of connectors have different bandwidth capacities, which can have  direct sonic implications.  Having said this, I'd still like some source of information about what the KEY variables are to WHY different connectors differ sonically.  I wish my trusty audiophile writers at Stereophile, Absolute Sound,  or for that matter, Home Theater and Sound would spell these matters out.  Perhaps it is beyond their level of experience or such matters are not yet sufficiently understood so that they can be written about for the lay person like me to understand.  I don't really think it's a "conspiracy" as some would say in these blogs - it may be a lack of rigor or will to invest the time to make it understandable.  In any event, I remain disappointed that it's not easier to find information that explains these matters in a readily understandable way.   Any follow-up thoughts?   

RobW (not verified) -- Tue, 08/11/2009 - 17:24

If a cable carrying digital data has a "sonic signature", that that cable is introducing ERRORS in the data stream.  In other words, if that same cable was used to transport data to your disk drive, your bank records would have ERRORS in them.
 
So NO, there is NO "sonic signature" or "brightness" in a cable that is delivering digital data to its receiver without ERRORS. If there is a "sonic signature" of such a cable carrying digital data, do not save your banking spreadsheets with it unless you intend for them to be wrong.
 
 
 

wilsynet (not verified) -- Tue, 09/01/2009 - 10:28

"Digital signals pass or they don't".
That's not true.  If there are data errors in the transfer or there are differences in timing (eg. jitter), the receiving device does not go back and get it like a computer would with its hard drive.  The data stream is real time.  Now, whether there are substantive differences between two digital cables, I can't say.  But "it passes or it doesn't" is not true.
 

Anonymous470 (not verified) -- Fri, 08/07/2009 - 00:11

It's a device, not a piece of art. Where are the specs of it. For that matter, where's the DEFINITION of it? This writer seems to be SELLING the device, not reviewing it objectively. I'm assuming, from the test and the comments, that a DAC is a Digital-to-Analog cable. I don't know why you need one, what benefits one gets (on a technical basis, not the subjective "bright" description). I take the output of my sound card and run it into a preamplifier, then to an amp. It sounds great. What's the point of a DAC?

michele surdi (not verified) -- Fri, 08/07/2009 - 08:21

 oh pulleeeze,synchronous usb inputs and they want to sell it as a usb dac?no bill johnson,there is no santa claus.
thank god for gordon rankin
michele from rome