Please Help!! looking to get into computer audio.

If you use Google Chrome as your browser on your PC,   you can stream CD quality (16 bit, 44.1KHz sample rate) Tidal audio through the USB to your Byrston. Chrome is the only browser that supports CD quality Tidal.

For a stand alone music server, you might take a look at the Sony HAP-Z1ES and HAP-S1. They take the PC out of the picture, except for loading the files to the music server. You get a simpler user interface that a player like JRiver, but the management is also much easier. Unfortunately, you cannot stream things like Tidal through it.

You have a PC with a USB output and you have a fine DAC with a USB input. You can start with iTunes and just connect the PC to the DAC. I think the USB on your DAC will only accept 44 or 48 KHz audio, but it will give you a good idea of how it can sound. If you want to do higher resolutions you can get a usb to S/PDIF adaptor to connect the PC to the Byrston at higher sample rates.

Once you have this working you can try a different player like foobar (free) or J RIver ($50, but has a 30 day free trial).

I would suggest taking small steps before investing  in more hardware.

eric - The OP has a 103, not a 105, so usb to it is not an option.

ghosthouse - I am not a Apple guy, but I believe Chrome is the only browser supported for CD quality, according to their website.

" Currently lossless streaming with our Web player is supported in Chrome only "

https://support.tidal.com/hc/en-us/articles/202162111-System-Requirements-for-HiFi-using-the-Web-Player-

I do not know the status of the stand-alone applications on either Windows and IOS.

I use Bubble UPnP on an Android tablet sent to a DLNA renderer on my Windows PC.

mensch - The BDA-1 usb is not as much of an issue as you might since the unit upsamples everything using it own timing chip.  I suggested trying usb as a start and then also considering a usb to S/PDIF converter. My point was to try that first, rather than follow the multiple suggesting to complete change the system. Small steps when getting starting is often a good course of action.

I am not a Tidal expert by any means, nor an Apple expert, but here is what I know.

I think Web app means browser based apps. If you access Tidal through a Web browser, you have to use Chrome for CD quality.

The desktop app for Windows does HIFI, I believe.When I go into Settings - Streaming it lets me choose the quality of the output. On the desktop app, HIFI is an option. HIFI means CD quality. When I use Firefox to access the Web application, it says I cannot choose HIFI and only gives me Normal and Hi, which are not CD quality.

The problem with the Tidal app for me is that the app then uses the WIndows audio system, which is not bit perfect. I am not sure how that works on Apple. Give it a try and see if it gives you the HIFI option in Settings - Streaming.

The issue with using the tablet or phone apps is getting the output to your stereo setup without using the DAC in the phone or tablet. The Android Tidal app does not let me send the HIFI signal to another system. So,  I use UPnP on an Android device since it can pass Tidal CD quality files to a DLNA renderer for playback, in my case the JRiver renderer on my PC.

Unfortunately, I do not know how to use an Apple tablet or phone to send that signal to an Apple system. However, the latest Tidal app for tablets and phones says it supports Chromecast. So, if you buy a Chromecast Audio device, you should be able to stream a HIFI signal to it and use the Chromecast Audio optical out to send the signal to a DAC, if you DAC has an optical input. Otherwise, I do not know how to send the HIFI digital signal to from the phone to an Apple desktop or laptop.

Again, I am no expert, but that is what I understand.

eric - I fully understand async USB and jitter. However, if the DAC resamples using its own clock, then async vs. sync timing should not be an issue. The DAC controls the final timing, and it is independent of the usb timing. If some people think that DAC sounds better with S/PDIF than USB that is fine. But the issue is probably not jitter in the USB signal, since the DAC reclocks the signal anyway.

My point was simply that the OP should try the USB from his laptop to his DAC before investing in lots of other options.

erik - This is probably not the place for this discussion, but here goes anyway. You have  to understand that the DAC completely reclocks the signal using its own internal clock. The DAC receives the data from its usb input, puts the data into an internal buffer and then pulls the information from its internal buffer and, using its internal clock, reclocks the signal. That was done by Brystron to avoid jitter problems on the USB.

Please explain how the sync timing on the USB effects the internal reclocking of the signal. The only way it can is if the sync usb cannot fill the buffer fast enough, which is very unlikely.

The reclocking process is not done by all DACs. Many just use the timing that comes through the USB, in which case async is certainly preferable to sync USB. But, since the Bryston DAC uses its internal clock to reclock the signal, the jitter on the usb does not make its way into the final data.

You might want to read the Stereophile review, in which they clearly state that the BDA-1 reclocks the signal internally, in order to control jitter.

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/bryston_bda-1_da_converter/

From the review

" One of Bryston's primary goals for the BDA-1 was to reduce clock jitter, ie, mistimings of the digital datastream presented to the DAC. Unlike the company's BCD-1 CD player, a one-box transport and DAC, the standalone BDA-1 must reclock all signals fed to its data inputs"


As an aside, I used to make my living doing realtime programming on realtime operating systems. The issue of timing incoming signals coming into a computer is well known to me.

Erik - Care to comment on the specifics of the reclocking that is going on in the Bryston BDA-1, the DAC in question. I think you are mixing reclocking with upsampling. The BDA-1 reclocks then upsamples. Two different operations.

The jitter can never be better than the clock in the DAC. You somehow think that the timing is better when applied in async USB mode than when implemented internally in the DAC by reclocking. That is just not true.

Please, address the specifics of the reclocking that is going on with the BDA-1. Are you really saying that if the BDA-1 used aysnc USB then the jitter would be lower than using its internal clock to reclock the data?

And, reclocking is bit perfect. It simply takes the data (2 16 bit data points for each sample) and sends that sample on with the timing of the internal clock.

Your discussion of Schiit filters is an entirely different topic than reclocking.

" The worse the input signal (i.e. more jittery) the worse the output signal " Clearly you do not understand the idea of reclocking of signal as is going on in the BDA-1.

Honestly, I think you are throwing around a lot of terms without really understanding the process that the BDA-1 is using, especially the concept of reclocking.

Erik - You obviously have a pretty low opinion of Bryston engineering. They understand these timing issue very well. You seem to think they just kind of hacked this together. Guess what - I think they understand buffering issues. A sync usb is only very slightly off in timing.  I do not know for sure, but I bet they are not using a 10 byte buffer.

You act like the usb input on the BDA-1 is total crap, with just awful jitter. Well, I think Byrson engineering is better than that. They understand buffer and timing issue.

You throw around ASRC like it is some sort of technology. Well, it is not a specific implementation and how Byrston implemented its reclocking should not be jumbled with all other ASRC techniques.

Somehow you want to make this into some big discussion about all timing issues in PC audio. The issue I brought up is that the reclocking in the BDA-1 makes it much more immune to jitter than a typical sync usb interface. You seem to not believe that. You seem to think that the reclocking the BDA-1 implements is just as bad as sync usb. Well, I simple do not believe that, Bryston does not think so, and Stereophile does not believe that.

Give it a rest. I agree that async usb is better than sync usb. But, reclocking is implemented for a reason, whether it is in the BDA-1, the W4S unit you referenced, the Empirical Audio reclockers, etc. And, sure, I would rather have an async usb DAC rather than an async one. But the BDA-1 is a fine DAC, with pretty low jitter because of its reclocking.

Sorry - correction

" And, sure, I would rather have an async usb DAC rather than a SYNC one. "

erick - I understand what your were saying all along. I just thought some of it was incorrectly or at least confused.  Let me explain.

Async usb is bit perfect, but so is reclocking. . You seemed to imply that aysnc usb it bit perfect but reclocking is not. Upsampling is not bit perfect, but nobody would claim it is and it is a separate process from reclocking.

Aysync usb and reclocking as are good as their clock, assuming a quality implementation.  Async usb and reclocking using the same clock should produce basically the same result as far as jitter is concerned. Once again, you seem to imply that async usb produces lower jitter than reclocking, which is not the case.

If you believe that async usb is superior to reclocking in terms of jitter, then we disagree. If you agree that properly implemented async usb and a reclocker are basically equal in terms of jitter, then we agree. All of this assumes a quality implementation with the same clocks.

As to why async usb is so popular,  clearly it is better than sync. It has also become a requirement as far as marketing is concerned. It is also easy to implement. There is no reason not to do it these days. But, that does not mean it is inherent better  than a good reclocker in terms of jitter.

And, yes, I do understand async usb.