As noted in a previous post, I recently acquired a CX to get a feel for the Antipodes gear. I am running Roon, and connecting the CX to my Bricasti M3 via a short, direct Ethernet connection. Back when this gear was released, it was recommended that the CX be paired with an EX as an endpoint/streamer, with the DAC connected to the EX. I have experimented with the Bricasti connected to the CX using both Ethernet and USB, and there is a very clear improvement when using the Ethernet connection. I have also compared this with the Bricasti connected to my Innuos Zenith via USB, and again, the Ethernet/CX combination is superior.
My question is whether there is value in putting an EX or other qualified streamer in between the CX and the Bricasti. And if, in that configuration, you could still use the Ethernet connection to the Bricasti, or if you are then relegated to using USB or SPDIF for output. It seems the gains of the EX would be redundant if you then used the Ethernet connection to the Bricasti, wouldn’t there be two streamer/endpoint/renderer’s in the mix? I understand that a dedicated box like the EX probably does a much better job than the add on network card of the Bricasti. Is the Bricasti doing everything that the EX does, or is it some subset of endpoint capabilities?
I am very pleased with the performance of the CX, and always looking for improvements to my digital setup, but I am having trouble understanding the various pieces of the chain, especially with this new network capable DAC. Thank you for any enlightenment you can provide.
My understanding is that the benefit from adding something like the EX to a CX comes as a result of having a less noisy computer in direct contact with a DAC. So if connecting by USB, better to have the lower powered EX than the more powerful CX serving that purpose.
In the case of a network connection, I imagine it will come down to which player engine does the least harm, the EX or the one built into a DAC. I am not sure generalizations can be helpful as I suspect the only way to sort this out is to evaluate it yourself or hear from someone who has done that exact comparison.
Hi there, to answer your question… it depends on the DAC.
Generally speaking, it isn’t a great idea to use a computer in your DAC. The concept of a music server is to remove those functions and noise from the DAC environment.
The CX was designed as a server. I am not surprised you prefer Ethernet to the Bricasti over USB from the CX; the CX wasn’t designed for USB function. It was intended to be paired with an EX to enable USB to your DAC in a two-box server/player.
So, adding an EX to a CX will most definitely improve the USB performance, will it best the Bricasti Ethernet in? Only you can say, your ears, your environment, and source material.
With the current range of servers, that is the G4 range, with the Antipodes isolated, regenerated and re-clocked USB, I would definitely go USB.
For sure the EX was purpose built to be a top notch streamer and would likely be an improvement over the Bricasti network board. And yes, adding more computing to the DAC can be a detriment. I am just so surprised by the improvements that an ethernet connection to my DAC brings, that I am loathe to go back to USB in any form. I guess I would have to hear an EX coupled with my DAC via USB to make that determination, or of course head up the chain to some newer Antipodes gear. Thanks for your comments, food for thought.
Another way to look at this is that the Bricasti’s network interface proved that having the player engine distinct from the server engine, as Antipodes recommends, is definitely the way to go. The gains you heard may have far more to do with that than with supplanting USB.
As mentioned, USB is much improved in the G4 models. These models also gain the benefit of Antipodes new power supply technology. How this compares the supply that’s powering the player engine inside the Bricasti may have a larger say on sound quality than the interfaces themselves.
Having the player device seperate to the server is likely the biggest benefit.
The Bricasti player design might offer comparable SQ to EX, or other similar players.
There is potentiialy a benefit of using the Bricasti as player because its xonnection to the DAC is not degraded by cables and format conversions, Bricasti may have ensured 'isolation’between the player and DAC circuits
The Bricasti player might be implemented to be low impact on terms of noise inside/close to the DAC
The noise conveyed via ethernet might be a bigger problem than what’s gking on insude the Bricasti.
A seperate player like EX or your Innuos with a mediocre power cord and ethernet ot USB cable might be worse than using the Bricasti player with an excellent ethernet cable.
You might be wise to focus on other sources of noise
There are many variables depending on products being used.
Consider plugging a Telos MacroQ into Bricasti when using it as player. You could useone in the CX too, I do. Also, I have found an EtherRegen Side B output is better than CX direct out. So a decent switch connected to both the CX and Bricasti may be better than CX direct out.
Thanks, good comments. My ethernet cables are middling, DH Labs and Audio Sensibility, so maybe due for some upgrades. I agree that much of it is up to the implementation in the Bricasti. I think it must be pretty good, but I also think that eliminating the digital cable altogether, along with what is probably a short internal run via I2S, are the game changers.
I do have a Stack Smoothlan unit, and I have had it in front of the CX, I might give it a try between the CX and the Bricasti.
From this review, but again this was almost 8 years ago:
Mark Jenkins: (Big Mark )
“USB has greater potential but requires a very good server. Ethernet is better only when the server is a little noisy.”
*This is what makes Christiaan one the best reviewers going; he reports on many input and output connection options, software and cable options, and integrates other components connected to the component being reviewed, instead of the usual reviewer connecting a component with whatever single source and cable was on hand, which may not be the best way to connect them, and then devoting 3/4 of the review to what music was played.
@watts Thanks for sharing. I agree, his reviews are excellent. Listening to some Jon McLaughlin right now, just stunning sound. I have run REW scans on my room, so I have the gear. I will be giving convolution filters a try to see if I like the results.
)