Bricasti Model 3 DAC

[barrows]

This DAC is on my radar.  For a component made in the USA it appears to offer fair value for what appears to be high build quality.  The interest for me is in the DSD DAC...  The specifications suggest the DSD circuit is very close to that of the M21.  It would be nice to learn more details of the DSD conversion approach applied.  I suspect the analog circuits will be fine, being Bricasti.

[barrows]

I would really to hear some more details about this DAC.  For example: in the DSD section: is this a discrete conversion solution (non IC, low pass filter approach)?  Does the DAC do the DSD conversion at its native rate (DSD 64 and DSD 128) or does it use its processing power to increase the sample rate before the conversion (remaining one bit)?

Is the DSD conversion section the same as it is in the M21?  It sounds like it may be...

Also, considering it allows for a native DSD path, why does the DAC not allow for higher DSD rates?  4x and 8x DSD are popular for those who like to oversample in software (and there is more music available recorded at DSD x4 every day from Channel Classics and Reference Recordings).  I certainly hope that Bricasti will consider upgrades to all of their DACs allowing for up to DSD 512 rates.

 

I am impressed that Bricasti has been able to produce what appears to be a very, very nice, DAC, with a quality build, in the USA, at a very reasonable price.

[barrows]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

I get the impression that the software side of things is part of the issue, and this doesn't seem to be Bricasti's strong point. Apparently they get all their software from an outside supplier, and don't have the ability to do much in terms of upgrades.

I wonder what they are using for USB hardware wise, if it is XMOS getting higher rates of native DSD to work should not be very difficult.  Also, if Bricasti has a lack in the coding area (internally or amongst their consultants) I would find it hard to believe they developed their own Ethernet interface.  

[barrows]

21 minutes ago, firedog said:

 I’d assume similar issues explain why they are “stuck” at supporting DSD 128.

I would not make the same assumption.  Getting their XMOS USB interface (I am playing with a $99 DAC board right now which handles native DSD 512 input no problem through its USB/XMOS input) to work at Native DSD 512 is an entirely different thing than coding the OS for their Ethernet Renderer.

It would be interesting to know more about their DSD conversion approach.  Often these "pure" DSD approaches work quite a bit better with DSD 256 and DSD 512-it makes me wonder if they are oversampling DSD in their processing chip to a higher rate.  In any case, with a "pure" DSD converter, Bricasti would be advised that supporting higher DSD rates will only help their sales.

[barrows]

Still, I do not believe the company which makes the very best pro audio digital reverb unit suffers from a lack of software engineering expertise!

[barrows]

Hey folks, I got a few more details on the M3 and Bricasti's DSD conversion approach.

First, on the M3and how it differs from other Bricasti models:

 

The M3 uses the same Delta Sigma AD chip used in the other Bricasti DACs for PCM.  This can also do DSD or...

 

The M3 offers the same single bit converter approach used in the M21 for DSD: this is a discrete low pass filter approach, driven by high speed switches.

 

Unlike the other Bricasti DACs, the M3 is more affordable due to having a single power supply for both channels (eschewing full dual mono construction).  It does incorporate separate supplies for analog/digital sections.

 

The M3 uses the same analog volume control used in the M21.

 

The M3 has a simplified analog output stage compared to the other Bricasti DACs, with an all IC based circuit instead of the hybrid IC and discrete transistor analog stage used in the M1 and M21.

 

We used the Bricasti M21 at RMAF this year, and it is a very impressive DAC on both PCM (using its ladder DACs, not available in the M3) and DSD (using the discrete conversion approach also used in the M3).  It looks like the M3 offers about 2/3 of what one gets with the M21, for less than half of the price.  That sounds like a really good value for a made in the USA DAC with very high build quality (I am very impressed by the quality of the build on the Bricasti components, really really well done).

 

Now here is to hoping that Bricasti decides to up the DSD rate in a future upgrade to the digital input board...  It is XMOS based, so it certainly should be  possible to allow this DAC to got to DSD 512... 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

Did you compare SQ of the ladder DAC section vs the DSD DAC section?

Thanks

 

Matt

What, how?  We only used the R2R DAC for playing PCM and the native DSD DAC for DSD.  With this DAC it did not really seem to make sense to do anything else, or do conversions before the DAC.  As prep time for RMAF is limited, and there is a lot to do, once we confirmed the R2R dAC sounded great for PCM, and the native DSD sounded great, we did not take anymore time for additional testing.

I would expect a formal review of the M21 would compare the Delts Sigma DAC with both the native DSD DAC and R2R DAC on their respective formats.  This is one DAC where an apples to apples comparison can be made between delta sigma vs. R2R (on PCM) and delta sigma (chip) vs. native DSD (discrete) DACs (on DSD).  Given that the various DACs are implemented with the same analog stage, volume control, and power supply circuitry...  Should make for interesting comparisons... 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, shahed99 said:

@barrows I see that Bricasti M3 page now says DSD 256 over DoP. Does this mean they've updated their digital input board? I also don't get how DSD 256 can be supported over DoP.

 

Also, does anyone know whether their volume control is active or passive?

There  are quite a few DACs which can support DSD 256 via DoP.  These DACs must support PCM 704.6 in order to do this.  The newer XMOS USB receivers have no problem with PCM 704.6, and the Amanero USB interface can also support this with certain firmwares.

In Bricasti's case, i have no idea what they had to do to upgrade their support, this would be a question for Bricasti directly, i suspect they are quite responsive to direct e-mail inquiries.

 

Edit, additional info:

 

The Bricasti M3 uses an analog, resistor ladder, volume control.  It has to use an analog volume control as otherwise there would be no way to control the volume when using the Native, single bit, DSD DAC section.  I am not sure what you mean by "active" vs. "passive" volume control?

[barrows]

I still do not understand what you mean.  All analog volume controls are "passive" in nature.  At least the volume control itself is passive.  Whether or not their is inactive buffer and/or gain stage after the volume control is another thing.  But it is a bad design to have a passive volume control with no active circuit after it to buffer the output, without an active line driver after the volume control, the output impedance with vary with the volume setting, and wreak havoc with the frequency response.  Also, with no active circuit after the volume control, the dynamics will suffer mightily.

 

I think you might misunderstand what Lukasz (Lampi) is dong, his DACs actively drive their outputs through he tube stage.

[barrows]

I have confirmed DSD 256 support via USB on the new Bricasti DACs (directly from Bricasti).  Apparently this requires a new input board.  Now that it supports DSD 256, I am thinking the M3, via its single bit DSD converter, may be a really fantastic DAC for those who prefer oversampling everything to DSD 256, as I do.  It is very nice to see such a high quality DAC, made in the US, at such a reasonable price.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

Thanks for sharing.

Did you compare DSD256 with the new Bricasti vs your Buffalo?

 

Matt

I do not have an M3 here (yet 😀), I confirmed with Bricasti that the new input board design supports DSD 256, and it also features a few other refinements according to them.  Due to the Pandemic they have not officially announced the new board, but I suspect they will very soon.  I believe there is a US review coming for the M3 soon as well.

[barrows]

10 hours ago, johnwilk said:

I wrote to Bricasti as a result of this posting and learnt that older M3s can be upgraded for $700, with the price rising after July 1st. As it turned out though, my unit has the new board already. I had been restricting output from Roon via my Lumin U1 to DSD128 believing that to be the limit. However, lifting the output ceiling to DSD256 and lifting the PCM to enable that level of DoP, then upsampling output to DSD256 I get... nothing. I'm in touch with Lumin about this, but any clues for troubleshooting would be welcome.

This is second hand information, but I just got word that DSD 256 capability is for Native DSD, so make sure you are trying to send Native DSD rather than DoP.

It is a little confusing right now, I think this is because Bricasti is in semi-lockdown, and they have not gotten the official specs out yet.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, johnwilk said:

Yes, and the Lumin identifies the type of DAC automatically and decides it's DoP. Lumin has sent me a set of questions to ask Bricasti, which I've forwarded to them. I have to say I was completely satisfied with DSD128 over DoP from Roon/Lumin and might end up ruing the day I learnt about the DSD256 option!

You cannot manually force the Lumin to send Native DSD?  That is a shame.  Please keep us informed as to your progress on this thread.  You may want to get Lumin and Bricasti communicating directly with each other on this, depending on the USB code used in the M3, it may be necessary for the Lumin's code to be updated to accommodate it perfectly.  With linux based renderers, it is sometimes necessary for their code to be updated to accommodate new DACs and native DSD.

 

I will have an M3 here sometime next week, and will be testing it with the Sonore Signature Rendu SEoptical, and will post the results and process of getting DSD 256 working with the Sonore.  I know that Sonore is constantly updating its Renderer software to accommodate new DACs for Native DSD compatibility.

[barrows]

On 6/2/2020 at 6:13 AM, johnwilk said:

Lumin has sent me beta firmware for the U1 and all now works brilliantly. Great service on Lumin's part.

So you are confirming native DSD 256 from Lumin U1 to the Bricasti M3, via USB right?  That is excellent news.

How is it sounding for you?

[barrows]

My M3 has the MDx board.  Adrian, the VP of Sonore, runs the Bricasti M21 DAC, and he just got the MDx board, and reports a nice improvement in performance in his system from adding it (amazing, as the M21 already sounded fantastic, we used the M21 at RMAF in our demo system last fall).

[barrows]

6 hours ago, matthias said:

 

The question is how can the prospective buyer be absolutely sure to get a Bricasti with the MDx board inside.

Is there a sign at the case or is it up a certain serial number?

I have seen so far no info about on their HP.

IMO, Bricasti should shed some light on this.

 

Matt

The Bricasti M3 DAC (and I assume other models) show the software in their display.  This also refers to the input board model.  Mine shows "MDx" right in the display.  I am sure they can confirm for you via the serial number as well if you were looking to purchase.  New DACs have been shipping with the MDx board for awhile now, it was just not officially launched because of the Corona lockdown in the NE.

[barrows]

2 minutes ago, sfseay said:

Interesting , I don’t have a “Status” menu.

Yes you do.  On the front panel of the Bricasti M3 DAC there are a series of 6 buttons, one is marked "status" it allows you to scroll through he menu options.  Press the Status button to scroll through your various settings.  One of the screens you will see shows the board rev. and the software version.  If you have the Mdx board it say: MDx followed by a software version number.

 

Mine says this:  MDx  1.02

 

 

 

 

[barrows]

15 minutes ago, matthias said:

Do you know what Brian uses as server with the Ethernet input Bricasti and would you say that the ethernet input is better than USB even with the MDx board?

Thanks

 

Matt

The comparison between the the USB and ethernet inputs would depend on the sources of each as well.  For example, The VP of Sonore prefers the USB input of his M21 to the Ethernet input when his USB source is the Sonore Signature Rendu SEoptical.  He actually got a further improvement by removing the Ethernet input board entirely.

Of course, if one just plugs in an ordinary laptop or something to the uSB input, one is then very likely to prefer the Bricasti's Ethernet input.

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

I suppose he has the MDx board?

 

Matt

Yes

[barrows]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

Sorry for being OT regarding M3.

The M21 seems to be the best sounding Bricasti DAC. Three different sources confirmed that the R2R Ladder DAC in the M21 sounds best for PCM. 

So is there a certain quality with R2R DACs that other DAC principles do not offer?

 

Matt

I will not address whether, to not R2R DACs have an advantage over SDM!  That is a debatable over the course of entire thread, and the history of DACs.

 

We used the M21 at RMAF last fall with the Bricasti M25 power amp, and Vivid Audio Kaya 25 speakers.  We felt the R2R DAC in the M21 sounded best for PCM material.  And we used the discrete DSD section for playing back DSD, which to my preferences sounded best.  The M21 uses the same R2R chips as the Yggdrasil, but otherwise the DACs are very different: Bricasti runs its own oversampling filters in the SHARC processor chip for PCM playback.  DSD playback goes straight to the discrete DSD conversion stage.

 

I got the M3, because I only play back DSD, and I could really not tell much (if at all) difference between the M21 and M3 on DSD playback.

 

For PCM, if want R2R, then you need to get the M21.  The M21 also has full dual mono power supplies for the analog stages, whereas the M3 shares a single transformer for the analog stages, but has separate regulation stages for each channel.  The M21 also has a hybrid output stage, with IC opamps for I/V conversion, and a discrete stage to drive the output: the M3 uses the same I/V stage, but with IC opamps to drive the output.  Bricasti seems to be very good at the analog parts of the DAC, and both output stages appear to drive amplifiers directly very well.  Both DACs also feature the same analog volume controls, which are also implemented in a dual mono fashion.  And of course the M3 is a bit more compact, but still features the same high quality build to the chassis and internal parts, and the MDx input board and digital power supply section are the same in both DACs.

 

For my money, the M3 gives 80% of the performance of the M21 (and 100% for DSD) at less than one third of the price-I am very impressed that Bricasti was able to offer this kind of value int he M3.

 

 

[barrows]

Yes, R2R DAC chips are very expensive to produce, this is why they are not even made for audio anymore.  The R2R dAC chips which exist are all made for industrial/measurement purposes.  The expense of production of R2R DAC chips is one of the reasons that SDM chips were developed in the first place.

[barrows]

@all300b,  I convert al music files to DSD via software conversion (Roon or HQPlayer) and then send it over optical Ethernet to my Renderer, and then to my DACs.  I have been doing this for a few years now at least, with an ESS 9038 based DIY DAC, a DIY DSC-2 style DAC, and now wiht the Bricasti M3 also.

 

I cannot really afford to bother with R2R approaches, if I could afford a really nice MSB DAC, maybe I would play PCM, but discrete DSD DACs, when well implemented, have a sound quality I just do not often hear with other approaches, especially when it comes to natural sound, and timbre, and musical textures.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

I just read this review of the M3 from June 2020 and I am wondering why they measured high jitter:

 

https://www.scvdistribution.co.uk/files/BR_M3_HiFiNews_June_2020.pdf

 

The jitter measurements seem to be much worse in comparison to the review of the M1 nine years ago.

 

I assume the M3 was reviewed with the MDx board.

 

Matt

 

 

I thought that was a curious result as well.  PM does not appear to mention which input this was with either...  AFAIK the M3 uses the same clocking scheme used in all Bricasti DACs (see Stereophile's jitter measurements of the M1 for another reference), so this result seems a bit anomalous.  Hopefully there will be a Sterophile review of the M3 for another data point in reference to jitter levels.  Also the result from PM does not correlate at all with the specification published by Bricasti at their website:

 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

I would say this is pretty interesting because in posts before launching the MDx board Brian Zolner stated that he prefers Ethernet over USB.

 

Matt

This is one of those cases where the source matters.  @sfseay is using an Innuous Server as the source, and it probably has much cleaner USB output than a normal commercial computer.  The VP of Sonore far prefers the USB input on his Bricasti M21 over the Ethernet input, but his USB source is a Sonore Signature RednuSEoptical and has a super clean USB output.  Sonore's VP found even better performance when he removed the ethernet board from the DAC completely.

Versus USB via a standard commercial computer, I would not be surprised if the Ethernet input on the Bricasti DACs was better. 

[barrows]

I am just loving the M3 combined with my Sonore Signature Rendu SEoptical.  I am running it at DSD 256 all the time via Roon oversampling, and using the Bricasti's analog volume direct into my Purifi amp.  The sound is so good, I am going to a lot of effort to optimize all other subtle aspects of the system to get the absolute best out of it.  

Currently I have IsoAcoustics Oreas on the way for the Signature and the M3, and am building a new super trick design DIY power cable for the power distribution block (formerly was using an older, high gauge, OCC power cable from PS Audio which is a bit slow and dark).  Also am upgrading the rack to bamboo shelves from Plexiglas, and have added Finisar SFP modules to my optical run.  I am also going to experiment with a trick Ethernet cable from the switch to the opticalModule upstream.  This set up is super revealing of small changes, and is achieving this high resolution while remaining totally natural sounding with rich textures and tonality.  Just loving the discrete single bit conversion stage of the M3!