Bricasti M1 > M5 > M12: Network Player - Member REVIEW - w/OEM Response from Brian Zolner President Bricasti

[matthias]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I love Bricasti products and have nothing against them.  Just wanted to emphasize though that the Sonore product in comparison here is our entry level one, the microRendu, both the ultraRendu and the Signature Rendu SE outperform the microRendu by a considerable level.  These products are: good (microRendu), better (ultraRendu), best (Signature Rendu SE).

 

You are right, but the advantage of the M1 with Ethernet connection is to provide a direct path from Ethernet to DSP/DAC via internal I2S like Linn Klimax DS.

IMO, the Sonore products are very good, but you always have Ethernet to USB and USB to DSP/DAC with at least two additional steps which degrade sound quality to a certain extent. That is the reason  the Bricasti M5/M1 combination is inferior to the M1/Ethernet.

Maybe Sonore can develop an OEM board to be placed inside for DAC manufacturers to get an Ethernet-DAC like Linn or Bricasti?

 

Matt

[barrows]

2 hours ago, matthias said:

IMO, the Sonore products are very good, but you always have Ethernet to USB and USB to DSP/DAC with at least two additional steps which degrade sound quality to a certain extent. That is the reason  the Bricasti M5/M1 combination is inferior to the M1/Ethernet.

That is a pretty big assumption.  While it will be true for DACs which feature crap USB interfaces, it will not be true for DACs with good USB interfaces.  A properly designed USB interface will not degrade the sound in any way, and it even offers some advantages, like complete galvanic isolation from the processing chip, with re-clocking direct from the DAC's masterclock XO.  (This assumes a USB feed form a high quality source, such as an ultraRendu or Signature Rendu SE).

 

While, ultimately, I would prefer the built in Ethernet interface in a DAC, IF it is implemented really well, and if it allows for all sample rates up to 768 PCM and DSD 512, I yet to see any DAC with a built in Ethernet interface which meets all these criteria.  At least I know the (sample rate limited though) Linn Klimax DS has a well implemented Ethernet interface which is well isolated and physically shielded from the sensitive conversion/analog circuitry.

 

Can you share any details on how the Ethernet interface is isolated and shielded from he sensitive circuitry in the M5/M1?  I would be interested to know more about Bricasti's approach, as I am a fan of their engineering in general.  

[matthias]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

While, ultimately, I would prefer the built in Ethernet interface in a DAC, IF it is implemented really well, and if it allows for all sample rates up to 768 PCM and DSD 512, I yet to see any DAC with a built in Ethernet interface which meets all these criteria.  At least I know the (sample rate limited though) Linn Klimax DS has a well implemented Ethernet interface which is well isolated and physically shielded from the sensitive conversion/analog circuitry.

 

I do not care about the numbers of an interface when it sounds better. Looking inside a Klimax DS there are two boards only: A DAC board with the transformer based output stage and a slightly smaller Ethernet/DSP board. Most interesting that there is only one input: Ethernet only. And now it supports DSD128 as well.

 

Manufacturers like Linn, Empirical Audio and Bricasti prefer Ethernet and in my view the DAC of the future is an Ethernet input DAC.

 

Matt

 

 

[barrows]

4 hours ago, matthias said:

Manufacturers like Linn, Empirical Audio and Bricasti prefer Ethernet and in my view the DAC of the future is an Ethernet input DAC.

Like I said, I agree with that assessment.  My point was that how one implements the Ethernet input is critical, most DACs with Ethernet inputs right now are using a very cheap Ethernet interface which performs poorly (I asked for details on what Bricasti is using because I do not know).  And most Ethernet interface are not implemented well enough.

The Linn Klimax DS is the one exception I know of, indeed the Bricasti may be another, but until I see the details I will not know.  Linn has an advantage here as Ethernet is the only input, so they can focus all their development and BOM on that single input.  Since you have seen the inside of the DS you must have noticed how the input is entirely shielded physically from the sensitive D/A and analog portions of the DAC by thick aluminum walls.  They also take great care in the power supply to keep the Ethernet power supply isolated from that of the D/A and analog stages.

All these details matter, and right now there are a bunch of Ethernet DACs out there which do not pay enough attention to get it right.  I never said that Bricasti is one of those, I just do not know (yet).  I would love to see some details.  The only public comparisons i know of were of the M5 to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE, both via USB (apples to apples), in that comparison Sonore was found to sound better (review of M5 at audiostream.com). 

[matthias]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

The only public comparisons i know of were of the M5 to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE, both via USB (apples to apples), in that comparison Sonore was found to sound better (review of M5 at audiostream.com). 

 

Now the internal Bricasti network board outperforms the external M5.

If you apply some logic conclusion to your post above you can imagine how good a Sonore network board inside a DAC will sound.......

 

Matt

 

[One and a half]

7 hours ago, matthias said:

 

I do not care about the numbers of an interface when it sounds better. Looking inside a Klimax DS there are two boards only: A DAC board with the transformer based output stage and a slightly smaller Ethernet/DSP board. Most interesting that there is only one input: Ethernet only. And now it supports DSD128 as well.

 

Manufacturers like Linn, Empirical Audio and Bricasti prefer Ethernet and in my view the DAC of the future is an Ethernet input DAC.

 

Matt

 

 

Until Ethernet DACs achieve

 

- 100% compatibility with USB input to a DAC

- Effectively deal with common mode noise on that Ethernet input

- don’t retransmit common mode noise to USB/AES3

 

there might be a future for Ethernet DACs/renderers.

[matthias]

1 hour ago, One and a half said:

Until Ethernet DACs achieve

- 100% compatibility with USB input to a DAC

there might be a future for Ethernet DACs/renderers.

 

What do you mean with this?

 

Matt

[barrows]

2 hours ago, matthias said:

Now the internal Bricasti network board outperforms the external M5

Source?  Is it not the same Ethernet interface?  I have asked repeatedly for any technical information which you may have on the Bricasti interface, but you have not provided any.  But it appears you may be holding out on me.  I am generally curious as I like Bricasti products and the way they are engineered.  If their Ethernet interface is so capable, why is it incapable of handling higher sample rates?

Honestly, if you have some revelatory technical information about this please share.

[barrows]

2 hours ago, One and a half said:

- 100% compatibility with USB input to a DAC

- Effectively deal with common mode noise on that Ethernet input

- don’t retransmit common mode noise to USB/AES3

Really not sure I understand this at all?  Ethernet inputs can be isolated from noise transfer in the same way as USB inputs.  USB is hardly universally compatible, in fact it often requires new drivers when OSs change.

In fact right now Ethernet is more universally compatible than USB is, via DLNA.  It is not perfect, but very close.

[rickca]

@barrows I know for sure than Bricasti developed their solution in house.  They do not, for example, use ConversDigital.

[matthias]

8 minutes ago, barrows said:

Really not sure I understand this at all?  Ethernet inputs can be isolated from noise transfer in the same way as USB inputs.  USB is hardly universally compatible, in fact it often requires new drivers when OSs change.

In fact right now Ethernet is more universally compatible than USB is, via DLNA.  It is not perfect, but very close.

 

Please read this thread from the beginning, for example the reply of Brian Zolner. He mentions that the internal network board outperforms the external M5. I would trust him, he should know his stuff.

 

PS: This post was the answer for your post before. Sorry.

 

Matt

[matthias]

19 minutes ago, rickca said:

@barrows I know for sure than Bricasti developed their solution in house.  They do not, for example, use ConversDigital.

 

AFAIK, Ayre use ConversDigital. IMO, it is not good.

 

Matt

[Ran]

48 minutes ago, barrows said:

Source?  Is it not the same Ethernet interface?  I have asked repeatedly for any technical information which you may have on the Bricasti interface, but you have not provided any.  But it appears you may be holding out on me.  I am generally curious as I like Bricasti products and the way they are engineered.  If their Ethernet interface is so capable, why is it incapable of handling higher sample rates?

Honestly, if you have some revelatory technical information about this please share.

 

Ethernet is not limited to a specific sample rate. It is irrelevant to the technology. The M5 supports higher sampling rates than 44.1kHz so I am not sure what is the issue...  Bricasti did their own thing using an ARM board with a Linux OS. The M5 I have does DSD x 4 and goes all the way to 384kHz which is more than enough.

[barrows]

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

Ethernet is not limited to a specific sample rate. It is irrelevant to the technology. The M5 supports higher sampling rates than 44.1kHz so I am not sure what is the issue...  Bricasti did their own thing using an ARM board with a Linux OS. The M5 I have does DSD x 4 and goes all the way to 384kHz which is more than enough.

I am well aware that Ethernet is not limited in sample rate.  This is exactly my concern.  I work with Sonore and our Ethernet products can serve up 768 PCM and DSD 512.  My point was to ask why the Bricasti interface is not able to do higher sample rates.  I am a bit confused though, you are suggesting that the M5 is more capable than its specs show:

 

http://www.bricasti.com/en/consumer/m5.php#m5_specs2

 

That would be a good thing if true, I hope that it is.

 

Additionally, as you seem to have some technical information at your disposal, when you say that Bricasti uses an ARM board, do you mean to suggest that they purchase a commercial ARM processor board complete from a typical computer parts vendor, or that they have actually developed their board and just use an ARM processor on there?

[barrows]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

Please read this thread from the beginning, for example the reply of Brian Zolner. He mentions that the internal network board outperforms the external M5. I would trust him, he should know his stuff.

 

PS: This post was the answer for your post before. Sorry.

 

Matt

Thanks, I will look for that post.

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

I am well aware that Ethernet is not limited in sample rate.  This is exactly my concern.  I work with Sonore and our Ethernet products can serve up 768 PCM and DSD 512.  My point was to ask why the Bricasti interface is not able to do higher sample rates.  I am a bit confused though, you are suggesting that the M5 is more capable than its specs show:

 

http://www.bricasti.com/en/consumer/m5.php#m5_specs2

 

That would be a good thing if true, I hope that it is.

 

The specs are a bit old... The M5 also supports OpenHome though it is not mentioned. I guess Bricasti does not see any benefit in 768kHz or DSD 512.

[barrows]

On 2/22/2018 at 2:49 PM, fsmithjack said:

Thanks for all that commentary, and well guess only thing I can say or add is once we got the LAN working in the M12, and then the M1 ( it’s the same streamer used in all products)

So the Ethernet interface is the same across the board in Bricasti products.

[matthias]

33 minutes ago, barrows said:

So the Ethernet interface is the same across the board in Bricasti products.

 

It is the same in the M1 and M12.

I suppose it is the same in the M5 as well.

 

Matt

[barrows]

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

The specs are a bit old... The M5 also supports OpenHome though it is not mentioned. I guess Bricasti does not see any benefit in 768kHz or DSD 512.

Cool, so you are able to play DSD 256 and PCM 384 through he M5's USB output, and confirm this?  What DAC is this going to?  and with the Ethernet interface in the M1 and M12, is it the same thing?  Capable of DSD256 and PCM 384?  If so, @matthias, perhaps you should remind Brian Z. to update the specs at their website, it is indeed a bit confusing.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

Cool, so you are able to play DSD 256 and PCM 384 through he M5's USB output, and confirm this?  What DAC is this going to?  and with the Ethernet interface in the M1 and M12, is it the same thing?  Capable of DSD256 and PCM 384?  If so, @matthias, perhaps you should remind Brian Z. to update the specs at their website, it is indeed a bit confusing.

 

I used it on iFi nano iDSD just to check it out after seeing a review mentioning the sampling rates (http://personalaudio.hk/2017/12/15/bricasti-m5-streamer-networkplayer/). My main listening is done via a Schiit Yggy. The M5 is connected via AES. I don't care for DSD and have no music files higher than 192kHz....

[matthias]

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

I used it on iFi nano iDSD just to check it out after seeing a review mentioning the sampling rates (http://personalaudio.hk/2017/12/15/bricasti-m5-streamer-networkplayer/). My main listening is done via a Schiit Yggy. The M5 is connected via AES. I don't care for DSD and have no music files higher than 192kHz....

 

The translation is here:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpersonalaudio.hk%2F2017%2F12%2F15%2Fbricasti-m5-streamer-networkplayer%2F&edit-text=

 

They confirmed DSD512.

 

Matt

[rickca]

Thank you @Ran and @matthias.  It is clear that the Bricasti specs are out of date.  I think Bricasti was still working on DSD256 and higher at the time those specs were published.

[One and a half]

3 hours ago, matthias said:

 

What do you mean with this?

 

Matt

For example, the Innuos server doesn't quite gel with the MC-3+USB, the Aurender N100 I think it was, didn't work with the Berkerley Alpha USB, let's not talk about DSD512 just yet either. There are DACs that don't work well when connected to an Ethernet to USB out, the process is not that simple. Rarities? Something to obtain a guranteee from the vendor.

[rickca]

6 minutes ago, One and a half said:

Aurender N100 I think it was, didn't work with the Berkerley Alpha USB

That problem got fixed long ago.  You are right that it was initially an issue.

[matthias]

5 minutes ago, One and a half said:

For example, the Innuos server doesn't quite gel with the MC-3+USB, the Aurender N100 I think it was, didn't work with the Berkerley Alpha USB, let's not talk about DSD512 just yet either. There are DACs that don't work well when connected to an Ethernet to USB out, the process is not that simple. Rarities? Something to obtain a guranteee from the vendor.

 

I would not stick to USB. Read the review here:

http://www.the-ear.net/review-hardware/innuos-zenith-se-mkii-std-network-audio-server

Jason Kennedy prefers the Ethernet outputs of the SE. Then you do not need devices like the Mutec.

 

Matt