Eat c sharp or bryston blp 1

000221-02.jpg



or


blp_1.png
 
thank s joe... I should have done this.... two beauties isnt' it ?
I shall add prices are 3000 € for the C Sharp without quatridge and the bryston will be 4000 € (with quatridge ? can't remember)... anyway rather close prices...
I know few people might have heard the Bryston, but if anybody has been blessed enough....who knows...
 
My pleasure.

They both look really, really, nice. We'll have to look into both of them to see the pros and cons.
 
Well,.... I could start by asking you to shade some light over the spec, and especially the SNR....

EAT states: -40dB of mechanical noise, and -70dB of electrical noise....while Bryston is just saying: "rumble": -82dB....

how shall I interpret these ? are the -40dB the limiting factor: no matter how good is the rest of the system you got -40dB of mechanical noise ? is "rumble" a technical term ?

last but not least, provided that all vinyl record have somewhere between -50 and -75 dB what is the point of having - 82dB ?
 
Thank you dchang81 for putting my thread up....
Unfortunatly no one never answers my thread.... Or I didn't ask properly ? (hey ! Face) maybe my perfume....

I could listen to the Csharp in the shop but they woudn't let me hear it on my system... I liked it a lot....
As for the Bryston TT, the only Bryston Seller in Paris (and almost in France) doesn't have the turntable on demo....the importer doesn't even have it listed on his site, as long as the new phono product....
 
One thing about Bryston products is the unreal warranty. Bryston analog audio products and loud speakers are warranted to be free from manufacturing defects for twenty (20) years from the original date of manufacture. The warranty includes parts and labour. Not many other audio companies even come close to that kind of warranty.
 
CPP said:
One thing about Bryston products is the unreal warranty. Bryston analog audio products and loud speakers are warranted to be free from manufacturing defects for twenty (20) years from the original date of manufacture. The warranty includes parts and labour. Not many other audio companies even come close to that kind of warranty.
Click to expand...

yes I own two Bryston units. Indeed it matters in my choice being a bit fed up with vintage gear issues....But as dChang81 put it only 3 years on the TT...

Beyong these two particular TT I came to reeed these articles:
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
https://thegrinnellpost.com/2015/05/01/a-technical-review-of-vinyl-records/

Both explain well the technical limitations of vinyl. And if you stand by this only, you don't want a TT. BUT there is three serious counter arguments:
- first there is the romantic aspect of vinyl and TT: the rituals around cleaning the dust, taking the record out, the beauty of the objet, etc...
- second , the music production industry, although better equiped these days, is often doing a crapy job (digital compression ending up having less dynamic than vinyl, again max 75dB...., or poor quality standards: "if it sounds ok in the car autoradio, it s good enough for the (mp3)market, etc...as a result a shitty digital production is obviously less good than a beautifull pressing...
- three, it might be a good idea to listen to the recordings (made before the digital era) the way they were intended to be played by their makers: on a TT. (ie not with a bass boosting compressed re mastering, that would classify easily as a reinterpretation, or a remix...)

This is the way to get out nicely of the sometimes sterile analog versus digital comparison. It is not that peter likes digital and paul likes vinyl and no one is right or wrong it s a question of subjective taste...no; It is neither that they are not comparable for being different technology...no.

One nice way out might be to say that some recorings (made ante the digital era) are better played on vinyl and some (because they were recorded digitally in the first place, or because indeed they are a talented and high quality digital remastering of the original analog masters) are better on the streamer... Music production has been and still is eterogeneous in quality... audiophile need both players to receive different "chefs d 'oeuvre"....(masterpeice)
 
I'm still interested in the EAT, briefly listened at a dealer and was impressed. Not a lot of feedback on the deck, i guess not a well established player. Curious the comment on the TAS review. I guess hard to put much stock in a comment dogging a product without explanation.
 
dchang81 said:
Curious the comment on the TAS review. I guess hard to put much stock in a comment dogging a product without explanation.
Click to expand...
To which comment do you refer ?

there is also the hifi news review http://www.absolutesounds.com/pdf/main/press/CSHarp_HFN_FEB15.pdf
which is nice cause they also check the spec from their own lab....
Could you explain me what "rumble" is refering to ? and so "hum and noise" ? how do they differ what do they refer to ?
the review states -69.8dB in Rumble, and -56.8dB in Hum and Noise..... what would be thge equivalent for the Bryston TT ? we should ask James....
 
someone online posted
[FONT=&quot]For four and a half Gs, I would want something a lot better than this dull piece of compromise. Say it like it is without worrying about offending the maker.[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top