Going from Mac/Amarra to either Bryston or Auraliti

[Jeff Arrington]

I would appreciate feedback on a potential upgrade.

 

My current system consists of a MacBook Pro to an Audiphilleo2 USB converter to a Berkeley Alpha DAC to Clayton M300 amps to Martin Logan Spire speakers. I use Amarra 2.3 Mini as my player, and an iTunes database comprised of wav, hi-rez FLAC, and AIFF files. I found Amarra to be a significantly different (and to my taste, more desirable) player than Pure Music, Fidelio, and Audirvana Plus. I tolerate Amarra’s quirks because of the sound quality. I use an iPad 2 (Remote App) as my controller.

 

I put this system together to familiarize myself with computer audio. I find this system produces superior sound to one using my Meridian 800 CD transport (that, in its day, was a SOTA transport). Now that I have concluded that computer audio is the way to go, and am more familiar with its trappings, I am seriously thinking about taking the next big step. My wife also wants the MacBook Pro back for her use.

 

After reading through many threads on this site and at the Bryston BDP-1 support sites, I am considering these two paths:

 

1) Auraliti PK-90

2) Bryston BDP-1

 

These two systems have much in common. In fact, the Bryston is based on the Auraliti. But they differ significantly at the output stage. The Auraliti is only USB output. I need a converter to get the PK-90 signal into my DAC. The Bryston uses a Bryston-modified ESI Juli@ card to output S/PDIF and AES/EBU to the DAC.

 

They also differ in terms of press. The Bryston has received rave reviews from the audiophile magazines and positive user comments are easy to find on various sites. Bryston also provides excellent support for the BDP-1. Ask them a question at Audiocircle and James Tanner responds promptly. The user reports on the PK-90 are very small (as far as I have been able to determine).

 

The two systems are close in price if I would need to upgrade my USB converter to a Wavelink or a Berkeley Alpha to make the Auraliti a winner. If the Audiphilleo2 is good enough, then the Auraliti (with an upgraded power supply) is about half the cost of the Bryston.

 

Obviously, I would love to hear from anyone who has compared the two units. Otherwise, can anyone offer a technical (or other) reason why one should perform better than the other? Is the Auraliti USB design using the SOtM card equal or superior to the ESI Juli@ card in the Bryston, or does the Bryston design have the upper hand?

 

I know it is best to listen to both pieces in my own system. But that is much easier said than done.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I look forward to any comments I might receive.

 

Jeff

 

 

[plakey]

Why not the PK100? It's not USB... it uses a modified ESI Juli@ card like the Bryson.

 

[bill_s]

Auraliti also makes a player with the same Juli@ card, in fact it was the first model shipped. You could buy both Auraliti players, the first one with a full Juli@ card which outputs analog and S/PDIF and buy the SoTM USB model also.

 

The main difference between the Bryston and Auraliti players with the Juli@ card is motherboard choice. The Auralti uses a more powerful Intel Atom motherboard and the Bryston uses the Alix 1d motherboard (AMD Geode CPU). Regardless, either motherboard is plenty powerful enough for audio playback. The second difference is the Auralti includes both sections of Juli@ soundcard (analog and digital out) and the Bryston only uses the digital out section (The Alix board does not supply sufficient voltage to drive the analog section of the Juli@). The Juli@ card is unique in that there are two boards connected together with the analog section being removal. The Bryston also uses a different power supply design.

 

So,buy one Bryston or buy both the Analog and S/PDIF output player and the SoTM USB versions of the Auraliti players. Then you tell us which sounds better.

 

[4est]

You already have the Audiophilleo, I'd get the PK 90. It is half the price and Demian (1Audio) is great at responding. Think of it this way, the devices are similarly designed by the same company. The one without Bryston's markup is half the price

 

It was a no brainer for me. I ordered the PK 90 after a couple of emails, as it was clear that Demian cared about his service and his product. FWIW, I never contacted Bryston.

 

[barrows]

as sound performance goes, the real question is which interface offers the best SPDIF output for your DAC: The juli@ in the Bryston, or the Audiophileo, fed by the SOtM USB out card in the PK90. My guess would be that the SOtM card to the Audiophileo is going to have lower jitter than the juli@ in the Bryston, but I am guessing...

Taking into account that you already own the Audiophileo, if I were you, I would be leaning towards the PK90, and investing the savings into more music, a really great USB cable (if you do not already own one), or other upgrades for your system (vibration control like Stillpoints are always a good idea)

 

[dummy]

You seem to really dislike the SPDIF output and you are usually quite vocal about It, is It sorely because of the jitter or something else?

 

I've read that the Bryston have low jitter numbers yet is SPDIF only.

 

All jitter numbers being equal, in theory, would a SPDIF vs asynch USB output be the same in the end or does an asynch USB brings something else to the table that SPDIF doesn't?

 

I don't need a super technical explanation here (as I probably wouldn't understand anyway) but I am curious nonetheless.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

What Forrest said. The Auraliti makes a lot more sense, either model. Though with your Audiophileo, I would go for the PK90.

 

[barrows]

SPDIF is flawed, period.

Async USB is better because the jitter is lower. Simple as that.

If you have the very best, SPDIF DAC, and the very best async USB DAC, the async USB DAC will have lower jitter and better performance.

 

SPDIF embeds all the necessary signals (bit clock, word clock, master clock, and data) into a single wire transmission. Then the SPDIF receiver has to strip out all those separate signals (by interpretation, which is not perfect) and convert the SPDIF to I2S (in which all the signals are carried separately) to feed the DAC. All this embedding, stripping out, and interpretation leads to innacurracies-hence jitter.

Async USB, just creates the I2S signals and sends them on to the DAC, the only jitter in well implemented async USB is the inherent jitter of the oscillators themselves-it does not have the extra jitter caused by the SPDIF format.

 

[dummy]

So, in a way, the cheaper USB Auraliti would/should outperform the 3X pricier Bryston who share the somewhat same DNA. Given that the end receiving DAC is asynch USB of course.

 

One last question, if you don't mind. With an USB to SPDIF converter, given that the end receiving will still be SPDIF, doesn't It negate the whole thing in the end anyway or does It matter still because the asynch part cleans that up? There is still a SPDIF cable involve from converter to DAC after all. I always wondered bout that.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

"So, in a way, the cheaper USB Auraliti would/should outperform the 3X pricier Bryston who share the somewhat same DNA. Given that the end receiving DAC is asynch USB of course."

 

It really is not (is it ever?) so simple. How well SPDIF is implemented, and how well async USB is implemented, in individual components will be a factor. For example, one could have an SPDIF only DAC, (a really good one) being fed from the Bryston, and someone else might have a mediocre async USB DAC, being fed from the PK90. The SPDIF example may, in this case, outperform the USB approach.

 

If we have equal quality implementation of both SPDIF, and async USB, then async USB will have the advantage.

 

 

 

[akustik80]

I would go for the Auraliti PK100 and connect straight to the alpha DAC via spdif.

 

I personally chose the auraliti over the bryston. I thought the auraliti was well designed and did not feel it was worth the extra cash to upgrade to the bryston (mainly for better case work and power supplies).

 

I have heard that auraliti may have a power supply upgrade in the works.

 

[dummy]

"If we have equal quality implementation of both SPDIF, and async USB, then async USB will have the advantage"

 

That's what I meant with the Auraliti outperforming the Bryston, in the case the DAC had both (SPDIF and asynch USB) equal quality implementation.

 

I am only speculating here, but I wonder If the little PK90 might equal/outperform as well an Aurender with AES? That may explain why Chris thought his CAPS2 was just as good/better than the Aurender. The power of asynch USB indeed!

 

Thanks again Monsieur.

 

 

 

 

 

[4est]

The PK 90 may very well compete with the Aurender.

 

[barrows]

really apples to spaghetti:

 

"The PK 90 may very well compete with the Aurender."

 

The PK90 is USB out only, the Aurender is SPDIF out only, so they are not directly comparable. Additionally, from a form factor standpoint, the Aurender is a single box unit, the PK90 requires three boxes (PK90, external HD, and external power supply). Since these two units do not play with the same DACs, they are no comparable-the perfromance of the DAC would likely dominate any comparison.

 

 

 

[James Tanner]

Hi folks,

 

Seems to be a lot of misinformation here so thought I would butt in.

 

Differences between the Bryston BDP-1 and the Auraliti

 

•Bryston does not purchase anything from Auraliti therefore we do not simply mark it up as some have suggested

•Different Digital output stage on the ESI soundcard – drivers and transformer replaced

•Different power supplies – one for digital section one linear supply for the analog section.

•Front panel display so not a ‘dead box’ and no need to be on the network to play your music files

•Built in software interfaces (Bryston MAX and MINI-2) to manage attached drives (Playlist etc.) for any device that can see a web browser

•Use Linux Demian rather than Voyager – software totally developed by Bryston engineers

•4 USB drive inputs (2 on the back 2 on the front)

•AES/EBU and BNC Digital outputs – extremely low jitter

•The BDP-1 is a NAS so it shows up on the network allowing you to write to NTSF and FAT32 attached USB formatted drives over the wireless network. This feature allows you to transfer your music without having to disconnect the attached USB drive.

 

Demian and Ray from Auraliti were a huge help to me when I started the BDP-1 project and I owe them a lot and their products and ours share some hardware and certainly the same vision of how to best playback digital files but we have gone in different directions on how best to serve our particular customers.

 

The BDP-1 is really much more like the Auraliti L-1000 than the PK100

 

James Tanner

Bryston

 

 

[bill_s]

Nice clarifications. But I have one humble suggestion. Tread carefully with this statement "Use Linux Demian rather than Voyager – software totally developed by Bryston engineers". I don't want to pick nits, but you may want to double check the veracity of that statement with your engineers. I am sure they can tell you all about GNU GPLs.

 

[James Tanner]

Good point Bill - I guess all those hours our software engineer worked on the BDP-1 mislead me (LOL).

 

james

 

[wappinghigh]

I heard the Bryston in their room at the Marriot Melbourne audio show a few months back. I was stunned how good their whole set up was playing from the BDP-1. I thought sound wise it was a standout. The best gear at the show.

 

If playing direct off usb is your thing, I wouldn't hesitate getting the BDP-1. I have a Linn Majik DSI. Streaming to it occasionally drives me nuts and I so wish it had usb direct play like the Bryston. Now if the Bryston also had uPnP streaming as well as USB direct play, then they really would have a knock out product.

 

I know and understand the philosophy behind the BDP-1 (not going with streaming), but would it be really that much difficult to add? I'm not being critical here...it's a good philosophy. But with a lot of folk moving onto streaming as well, it sure would add additional versatility to the BDP-1.

 

I'm so much looking forward to the BDP-2 with a DSD capable chip, and additional uPnP....wishful thinking I know, but I can always dream...

 

[bill_s]

Thanks James and no problem. I am afraid that sometimes (most times?) those of us who are hardware designers and software engineers (I have been both) are about as clear as mud! I really had to undergo extensive re-education and learn to speak like a normal human again when I moved into direct customer contact later in my career.

 

[bill_s]

PS... James, I am a big admirer of your BDP-1 and your whole line in general. I actually lust after your player over my home-built one. Yours looks nicer! If only the rest of the high-end audio industry were the same. I appreciate solid engineering over magic-speak and pixie-dust.

 

[audiozorro]

I'm so much looking forward to the BDP-2 with a DSD capable chip [End Quote]

 

Do either Auraliti or Bryston have plans to support DSD in the near future?

 

Can any of the music transports from Auraliti or Bryston be upgraded to incorporate future capabilities (like any typical computer music server) or do the manufacturers consider them to be closed boxes and have no interest in any future expansions?