Help me save my mates from the evil world of Brennan!!!

[WAD62]

Last night at the pub a couple of my mates who never express any interest in things Hi-Fi were rabbiting on about the 'Brennan' mp3 player/cd ripper/amp/toaster/microwave/vacuum cleaner etc... as featured in all rubbish Sunday supplements, next to the 1 giant slipper and incontinence pants adverts.

I mentioned that it was a 'baguette de merde' and that one could have a much better solution for less money...

Option 1;

Use a laptop/winamp/FLAC, with a half decent budget DAC, and their existing serviceable mid '80s Japanese kit. The question here is which DAC, I've heard the dacmagic3, and it seems excellent for the cost. But I notice a lot of people here use the Beresford Caiman, they're about the same price, any thoughts about the relative quality? Particularly when used via USB.

Option 2;

Get a squeezebox touch (a separate server would be too far for these boys), I know there are a few constraints when using the touch as both server and player, 100K tracks and 100 track playlists etc. Is anyone out there using the touch in this way? Are there any other problems/issues you've encountered?

Option 3;

Let them get the Brennan, and spend the rest of the year laughing at them...

My advice is option 1 by a mile (they already have laptops), but they seem to like the one box solution, so option 2 might be a better compromise...

Cheers,

Will

[Welder]

I’ve just got to do this. Forget about the Dac magic. It’s okay, don’t get me wrong, but even the basic HRT (£140 :eek:) at almost half the price concentrates on making music, not looking good or trying to offer every possible means of connection. It’s specifically designed for USB connection. It does one job and that’s it.
A step up, and in the same price range as the Dac “not quite as magic” is this.
http://www.headfonia.com/hrt-music-streamer-ii-2496-usb-dac/2/
Seriously, it is a remarkable bit of kit that unfortunately gets overlooked because it just doesn’t hack it with the eye candy loving audiophiles.
There you have it; want to walk the walk, or talk the talk?
The Caiman is another option which I haven’t yet heard, but lots here as you say, recommend it highly ;)

[WAD62]

If I suggest they get HRT they might feel a little insulted...what an unfortunate abbreviation!!!

Cheers for the input John, I'll bare that in mind, looks like a good USB option, I might tend towards the Caiman just for future flexibility for my mates, with the additional input options etc.

However that might be just the job for me for DJing (well pressing the play button on a laptop more like), I was looking at an m-Audio usb, but the HRT's not much more expensive mmmmm, very portable...

[WAD62]

...it's even more interesting that they're powered from the USB. All the other higher end ones seem to require an external power source, this seems too good to be true.

[technobear]

If USB is to be the main source then I would go with the Arcam rDAC.

[WAD62]

Cheers Chris,

Pushing the budget up, but the note about a future network enabled one on the spec is very interesting...

[technobear]

Thing is I've been mightily disappointed by DACs that use Adaptive USB and that includes quite a few from the very good value Beresford Caiman to the why would anyone pay for this Naim DAC.

The Caiman is a very good DAC when connected by S/P-DIF to a low jitter source. I had absolutely amazing results with a Transporter for example. The USB input, whether from a PC or a Laptop, was far behind. Even a Squeezebox Classic was better as a driver for the Caiman and yes I did pull out all the stops with foobar and WASAPI and all that stuff to give it the best shot.

Where USB is concerned, it has to be asynchronous and that's why I recommend the Arcam rDAC (or the HRT Streamer II+) to those on a budget.

You could also use an M2Tech HiFace with a Beresford Caiman but not only does that work out slightly more expensive than an rDAC, it doesn't sound as good.

I'm afraid £300 is the sweet spot at the moment for budget USB audio and the Arcam rDAC currently owns it.

[WAD62]

I'm glad you mentioned asynchronous...

I was just about to cut and paste part of the Beresford spec, when I realised I hadn't read it very well...'Isynchronous' is the word (always wear your glasses is the lesson here), after 25 years in IT it's a new one one me, 'Marketing'?...'Pulsed Synchronous' is what Wiki comes up with. In other words Synchronous in time intervals then.

If I think about this in an IT way it makes absolute sense, particularly if you're not using a multi core processor, which would make the data transfer process more subject to interruption.

So it also makes sense that an asynchronous recipient would be a bit more expensive as at a 'conceptual' level it will need a local buffer and accociated processing capabilities, and a more advanced driver.

[StanleyB]

So it also makes sense that an asynchronous recipient would be a bit more expensive as at a 'conceptual' level it will need a local buffer and associated processing capabilities, and a more advanced driver.
..which require a faster processor to make sure there are no buffering lags. So if there are lags, the data will have to be padded with correction bits ( in the same vein as the Solomon-Reed error correction), in order to make sure there are no signal drop outs due to time lags.
So isynchronous is faster and less error prone than asynchronous in terms of time lags :).

[StanleyB]

Thing is I've been mightily disappointed by DACs that use Adaptive USB and that includes quite a few from the very good value Beresford Caiman to the why would anyone pay for this Naim DAC.

The Caiman is a very good DAC when connected by S/P-DIF to a low jitter source. I had absolutely amazing results with a Transporter for example. The USB input, whether from a PC or a Laptop, was far behind. Even a Squeezebox Classic was better as a driver for the Caiman and yes I did pull out all the stops with foobar and WASAPI and all that stuff to give it the best shot.
I certainly wouldn't attribute that to Adaptive USB. The chip I use was designed for USB 1.1, whilst the recent crop of USB2.0 have far faster processing power. Once those USB2.0 isynchronous start showing up in a better DAC they wipe the floor with asynch. I have heard the future, so it is not a guess ;).

[WAD62]

Hi Stanley,

Can I assume that you are the proverbial 'horses mouth' as it were...

[StanleyB]

Nope. I am a product designer who actually works with these USB chipsets ;).

[WAD62]

...horse's 'nose' then perhaps

[StanleyB]

You can say that :).

[Vincent Kars]

I certainly wouldn't attribute that to Adaptive USB. The chip I use was designed for USB 1.1, whilst the recent crop of USB2.0 have far faster processing power. Once those USB2.0 isynchronous start showing up in a better DAC they wipe the floor with asynch. I have heard the future, so it is not a guess ;).

USB has 4 types of transfer modes
• Control Transfers: command and status operations,
• Interrupt Transfers: device requires the attention of the host
• Bulk Transfers: large volumes of data like print jobs
• Isochronous Transfers: time sensitive information, such as an audio or video stream

Within the Isochronous mode you three possible types of synchronization.

Synchronous
Adaptive
Asynchronous


So regardless of using adaptive or Asynchronous synchronization, the transfer mode remains Isochronous

It is completely unclear to me what USB2 got to do with this.

[technobear]

Stanley is also a manufacturer who doesn't currently have an Asynchronous USB product to offer so is to be taken with the necessary pinch of salt. What he says is interesting but the proof will be in the pudding. Your mates won't want to wait until the middle of next year to find out though.

[StanleyB]

It is completely unclear to me what USB2 got to do with this.
Say no more :rolleyes:. Do some real research and it will become clear. Parrot fashion repeats after reading marketing hypes can be done by anyone.

[StanleyB]

Stanley is also a manufacturer who doesn't currently have an Asynchronous USB product to offer so is to be taken with the necessary pinch of salt.
Are we discussing the technology, or my product range :scratch:? And why exactly would I want an asynch product? The technology is flawed. Asynch for anything has always been the inferior alternative.

[WAD62]

Very interesting stuff all round chaps;

I suppose for it to be truly asynchronous the 'Bulk Data Transfer', or FTP would be the way to go.

My assumption is that this is how my squeezeboxes achieve the same end result over the network connection.

I stand to be corrected...

[StanleyB]

There is a very good thread HERE (http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/493152/low-jitter-usb-dan-lavry-michael-goodman-adaptive-asynchronous)
that's well worth reading.

The one major point made by asynch is that:
The asynchronous USB has no reclocking. The USB device holds the master clock instead of the computer (adaptive).
That is one big lie as it turns out. I have looked in quite a few adaptive USB DACs, including my own, and I can see the clock clearly and without any question in the DAC. So where the asynch fraternity got the idea from that adaptive USB doesn't employ a clock in the 'device' is a mystery to me.

[WAD62]

From an IT perspective, truly asynchronous requires that the execution of the requested task be taken away from the critical path of the requester, once the successful receipt of that request has been confirmed, and that the recipient of the requested task has enough information be able to carry out the task autonomously, or without any further communication with the requester.

Well in noddy terms...

So I should just be able to FTP a file to the device storage, and it should then be able to process it as it wishes with all the clocks it wants or needs.

[trailer]

And you wonder why the man in the pub just wants a simple one box solution :ner:

[dave2010]

Do we take it from the preceding that Stan might make a modified Caiman or similar DAC using new USB 2 chips to match the devices at the other end of the wire?

Re the Caiman using USB - the resolution is limited to 16 bits, which might worry some people. A lot depends what sources you are using. It's fine, and convenient for some sources (e.g streaming from Spotify), and in my case I've just never quite managed to get that particular service (Spotify) stream to my Squeezebox and back into the Caiman. Some of the other DACs in roughly the same price range have similar limitations re resolution, and you've either got to pay more for a unit which does higher res. via USB, or use an additional device and maybe extra software to go via other routes. Most laptops don't have SPDIF outputs, as noted, though small systems such as the Mac Mini do.

Larger desktops, e.g iMacs do have this too, though is that a solution that the guys in the pub will want to use?

[WAD62]

And you wonder why the man in the pub just wants a simple one box solution :ner:

I know...

[Alex_UK]

Has anyone actually heard a Brennan? Is it really that bad?

[Stratmangler]

Has anyone actually heard a Brennan? Is it really that bad?

I haven't, but I'm biased against thinking favourably of the unit - after all it rips to a lossy codec as a best case scenario.

Now if it dealt with flac or alac ...........

[trailer]

I thought it ripped lossless as an option?

[Stratmangler]

Just had a quick look on their site, and lossless is not mentioned.

[trailer]

Go to the site and click on the Questions button. 7th question down the list. It says an exact copy of the CD but not the format used.

[Stratmangler]

See what you mean - however, it will not deal with flac or alac, so the gist of my original comment stands.;)
An exact copy of the CD will be a wav. file - larger than a flac or alac.

[trailer]

Indeed. Another thing is when you rip it doesn't seem to read the titles from a net database. You have to insert another database CD to get the titles?

[Stratmangler]

I was going to say that as a product it's close, but no cigar.
However it's more a case of not close at all and definitely no cigar:lolsign:

[Alex_UK]

Has anyone actually heard a Brennan? Is it really that bad?

I'll take that as a yes, then! :)

[Stratmangler]

I've never heard one.
The company's blurb puts me off, to be honest.

[trailer]

There's the Olive 03HD for £900 (ahem)

[Stratmangler]

There's the Olive 03HD for £900 (ahem)

It's enough to make you choke on your Cornflakes !!!

[WAD62]

...and still no better than a laptop with a half decent DAC

Just another modern day 'music centre'

[dave2010]

See what you mean - however, it will not deal with flac or alac, so the gist of my original comment stands.;)
An exact copy of the CD will be a wav. file - larger than a flac or alac.I believe it does do WAV, which IIRC is effectively lossless. According to the specs the conversion can be done to an external hard drive - or at least the converted files moved to an external hard drive. Once there it should be possible, with luck, to do a batch conversion of the files to FLAC or ALAC using another computer - but I don't know if it'll work, not having one of these devices.

If that does work, then although the intermediate WAV files would be larger than needed, the final files would be more in keeping with what you'd want, though this solution might need one or two additional hard drives for the intermediate steps.

Re having heard one - I have, and it wasn't too bad, though whether that was simply for background listening I can't say as the volume levels weren't high, and it was at an afternoon party. The guy who owns it used to be keen on sound quality with a job in the TV/radio industry. I just can't comment for sure on whether the audio is merely OK, or whether it is actually good. If I used one than I'd possibly use it only for ripping, rather than listening to the audio as well. For that purpose using an old PC and a system such as Vortexbox might be a better option - http://vortexbox.org/about/

[Stratmangler]

I believe it does do WAV, which IIRC is effectively lossless.

There's no effectively about it - WAV is lossless.

[sq225917]

The sensible thing is to get your friends hooked back on enjoying music and easily integrating it into their lifestyle, then worry about crap like sound quality.

[dave2010]

There's no effectively about it - WAV is lossless.
Usually, but not necessarily always apparently -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

I think WAV is strictly a container format, so can contain a variety of different data types, including LPCM, but not exclusively so.

[wee tee cee]

How about a lap top/net book,probably easier with built in cd drive.
Temple audio bantum with usb dac.Belkin pro 5m usb lead.
Some belkin speaker cable and a pair of half decent bookshelf speakers of your choice.
Down load I tunes,import at lossless.
Reckon it would give the Brennan a run for its money.....

[Stratmangler]

Usually, but not necessarily always apparently -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

I think WAV is strictly a container format, so can contain a variety of different data types, including LPCM, but not exclusively so.

You're quite correct, WAV is a container format.
You are however stretching the point - I don't know of any rippers that rip a CD to a compressed WAV file.

When taking the Brennan into account, we're definitely talking about uncompressed data.

[chelsea]

If they have a pc/notebook/laptop amp and speakers tell them to get a 2nd hand sb3 for £80.