roadtonowhere08 Posted February 26, 2012 Report Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) True, though relying on software knocks out a lot of source options (or you're back to adding more hardware in the path). Forgot about that. I have always had a computer as a source, so I was looking through that lens exclusively by habit. This also has Bryston's 20 year warranty since it is an analog product. That's always nice Edited February 26, 2012 by roadtonowhere08
purk Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) From the brochure: Power Options: • Standard: high quality Bryston internal analog power supply • Optional: MPS-2 power supply also available (replaces internal supply) The amp itself is listed at $1295, but the price will hit $3K once coupled with the additional MPS-2 ($1695) power supply. Edited February 28, 2012 by purk
Dreadhead Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Very interesting. No reason to switch from the GSX but....
guzziguy Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 ... but audiophilia nervosa has taken hold!
Knuckledragger Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 I imagine "Canadian sound" as very polite with a cold top end and most of the energy toward the bottom. The DMX515 protocol uses male XLRs (XLR-3 or XLR-5) for the output and female ones for the input.
purk Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Very interesting. No reason to switch from the GSX but.... I'm the same way. I sure hope that my Gilmore Reference Balanced can still edge out the Bryson.
luvdunhill Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 I'm the same way. I sure hope that my Gilmore Reference Balanced can still edge out the Bryson. or what, you turn into a pumpkin? heh. that statement just struck me as funny for whatever reason just now.
Dreadhead Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 At least for me, I'm not expecting to hear the difference, it's just something new (which has it's own value). The stack a BDA-1+BHA-1 would look pretty damn sick. Though I wonder if they have sorted out the weird behavior observed in the Stereophile review of the BDA-1. Who knows.
purk Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 or what, you turn into a pumpkin? heh. that statement just struck me as funny for whatever reason just now. You are reading a little too much into it But if the Bryston sounds any where near the GSX and come with 20 year warranty, it isn't a bad choice.
purk Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 the 20 year warranty makes sense with Speaker systems, but does anybody keep headphone stuff that long? Not really, but it is a peace of mind knowing that the investment you made is well protected. Plus it certainly will help the resale value as long as the warranty is transferable.
Torpedo Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 Any idea what this means? 6 Fully discrete Class A Bryston operational amplifiers The opamps are their design? Maybe that explains the uncommon power delivery depending on the impedance. in any case it seems "powerful enough".
Torpedo Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 power ain't the problem with most dynamic headphone amps. Nor electrostatic ones for that matter
roadtonowhere08 Posted February 28, 2012 Report Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) From the brochure: The amp itself is listed at $1295, but the price will hit $3K once coupled with the additional MPS-2 ($1695) power supply. From the audiocircle thread (page 21): Quote from: MellowVelo on 5 Dec 2011, 05:21 PM Hi James, Is there actually a difference in the level of sound quality between the internal-PSU version and the external-PSU version? Or is the external-PSU version just offered as a convenience for customers who already have the MPS-2? If there is a difference, what is the difference in terms of percentage? I know that that's pretty subjective, but if the external-PSU version offered 100% maximum sound quality, what percentage would the internal-PSU version offer? Thanks! Hi, Correct - just a lower cost alternative for folks with a MPS-2 already. james Edited February 28, 2012 by roadtonowhere08
blessingx Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 Seems pretty clear. He's saying one or more of the statements in those four questions is correct.
luvdunhill Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 Any idea what this means? The opamps are their design? Maybe that explains the uncommon power delivery depending on the impedance. in any case it seems "powerful enough". I think there is 2004 HF thread that might explain this a bit where Kevin commented, but they have a discrete opamp design (think Burson) they use in their designs to impart that Royal Mountie sound.
roadtonowhere08 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 That answer confuses me. Seems pretty clear. He's saying one or more of the statements in those four questions is correct. Yeah, it was rather nebulous! I am betting he was saying that for those that already own an MPS-2, the version with no internal power supply is a cheaper route, since getting one with an internal PSU is redundant. Now, I am not quite sure if any of the design has changed since that remark, but I think it has not. For those that do not own an MPS-2, the internal PSU version would be the equivalent. The only difference is that the MPS-2 can power 4 devices at once based on the number of power outlets at the back. I really do not think getting both will yield any audible results over just getting the internal PSU version.
guzziguy Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 true. the Justin Wilson warranty is worth a bit, though, since we can go and murder him if necessary. Or worse, cut him off from cheeseburgers.
swt61 Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 I think there is 2004 HF thread that might explain this a bit where Kevin commented, but they have a discrete opamp design (think Burson) they use in their designs to impart that Royal Mountie sound. I'll save you Nell!
n_maher Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 I like the gain options. Super high, and Stupidly super high. I'm confused, it looks like the choice is 5 or 10. I'd agree that 10 is stupid, but 5 is a gain number that I like a lot.
grawk Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 5 on a balanced amp seems insanely high to me, and I don't listen at churchmouse levels like you do Nate.
n_maher Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 5 on a balanced amp seems insanely high to me, and I don't listen at churchmouse levels like you do Nate. If we're going on the assumption that 5 equates to an effective 10 given the balanced configuration then I revise my previous statement, having the low gain option set that high is unlikely to yield good results. I'm also not a fan of parking the outputs right next ot the power transformer. Where's the logic in that?
grawk Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 Looking at it again, I guess I'm just confused. 14db or 20db, if they're the same on both balanced and unbalanced outputs, I guess either COULD be reasonable levels.
spritzer Posted February 29, 2012 Report Posted February 29, 2012 Is is me or does that look like a 2-gang Noble AP-25? http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ces/2012/images/Bryston-innards-DSCF6579-1200.jpg How are they doing a fully balanced amp with only two gangs and a dual gang balance pot? Hmmm....
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now