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 ) 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-s...496-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 .