2. digital
  3. 1328422306

Bricasti M1 - where is the music

I had a chance to audition the highly-praised Bricasti M1 at my dealer. The associated gear include ATC 100 passive floor stander, ML pre and mono block. We used playback designs MPS5 for comparison and as the transport. I auditied this DAC hoping to use it as a secondary source to my Klimax.

We used primarily Diana Krell's CDs, including Live in Paris, and violin solo and concertos.

The positive:

M1 is technically excellent. The highs are extended without harshness. Mids are fairly transparent. Bass hits deep with power and definition. M1 reminds me of DAC1 and dare I say it's a souped up DAC1 in every respect (could be a good or bad thing)

The negative:

I would say the biggest weakness and ultimately my dismissal of this otherwise technically proficient DAC is its ulter lack of musicality. For example, human voice do not sound real and organic when compared with MPS-5. When Diana sings, I did not get the imagery of her singing. Like the mids, the highs on M1 leave much to be desired. For example, symbols in Living in Paris and violin solos lack the real life quality associated with those instrument. M1 sounded just like another digital DAC, displaying all the negative aspect of digital music. On the very high notes of violin, all I heard was a monotone sound, without the usual harmonics and woodiness I am used to with Klimax and what I heard on MPS-5. Soundstage of M1 feels contrived and not realistic. I did not hear the complex layering as with he MPS-5, nor did I hear as deep of a soundstage.

I believe if you like how DAC-1 sounds and wants a more refined and upgraded version of that sound, M1 may be a great choice. However, if you value real-life organic sound with music unfolding in a natural way, you may want to look elsewher
e.

Overall I was very disappointed in the M1 when I had very high expectations after reading the latest review in an audio magazine.
chesebert
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
at the rsik of generalizing, i would say that my experience has uncovered the following:

a solid state device is generally not preferable to a tubed device. obviously, there are poorly designed tubed components and lousy tubes.

what i am saying is that in general, take the best solid state device and you will find a tubed device that sounds better.

i have heard decent dacs, in the past, forsell and older wadias, e.g., but i have found that there was always a preferable tubed dac or player.

considering components in production today, solid state digital hardware is inferior , in my opinion to older less resolving players and dacs, and of the digital gear i have owned, i have always preferred a tube in the circuit.

when i heard the bricasti i too was underwhelmed. i'd rather own the original minmax with a brimar 12at7 or 12au7.

i suppose, in all fairness, the subject of this thread recalls the essence of the argument among audiophiles, tubes vs solid state.
antigrunge
74 posts
 
i fully agree with Audioengr: compared to jittery servers and bad clocks which are clearly digital issues, sound differences between converters are small in my experience. There is an argument for analogue attenuation, whether passive or via preamp. In my eperience on digital devices, insertion of a preamp is generally less productive than that of a passive attenuator. While I am a great fan of tubes for amplification, to wit: I use a Wavac EC300B, I don't see their benefit in conversion or attenuation
zugisland
42 posts
 
Ran the M1 up agaisnt 5 other high end dac and it was the clear winner..
lula
213 posts
 
Zugisland,
Can you tell us the names of those "5 other high end dacs"?
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
Antigrunge - what kind of passive attenuator do you use with the Wavacs?

I have found that transformer-based is the best. I have a pure silver cryo-treated Music First myself, but I'm developing a transformer buffer stage using the latest Finemet transformer technology from Japan. Now that sounds amazing.

If you are using balanced to your amps and not using a transformer in the line somewhere, you are losing out on a major improvement in SQ IME. All balanced to amp situations should use transformers, and the best you can acquire. Two reasons: First, it is the only way to achieve truly balanced situation. Solid-state balanced is never really balanced. Second, it can isolate the grounds from amps to other components, elminating ground-loops which typically pick-up HF noise and sometimes hum.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
More to discover