Berkeley Audio Design Announces The Alpha USB Asynchronous Interface

It would be my understanding that the "streamlength" code could be equated to the DAC chip... Just because identical code (or DAC chips) is used does not make the whole box identical. Beyond the USB interace chip there is significant digital engineering which (may) make a difference before the digital output. <br />

<br />

Eloise

the Streamlength code "may" be the same, but it's safe to assume that everything else is different. This is also a different idea compared to Gordon's USB powered interface. This unit has it's own power supply and regulators and dual outputs. Additionally, if you use the BNC output into the Alpha's BNC input you get a true 75 Ohm connection and that should make uncle Gordon happy....<br />

<br />

Jesus R<br />

www.sonore.us

You worded that so much better than I did Jesus!

AudioDoctor said: <i>"I don't get it. Why would someone want to buy this instead of an Asynch USB DAC?"</i> and <i>"For the price of this device, plus a DAC I bet you could get really close to the price of a Wavelength DAC, and you could probably get a really good price on a used one, if you were ever lucky enough to find one for sale, and eliminate one more step in the chain."</i><br />

<br />

Here's my take - All DACs and interfaces are different no matter what connection technology they use. People will want the Alpha USB because they consider their DAC better than an Asynch USB DAC or they would rather spend $1,695 on this interface than spend several thousand more for a completely new DAC. Also, this isn't about eliminating the most steps in one's playback chain. It's about obtaining the best / most accurate music reproduction in one's home. If getting this sound means adding or subtracting a link in the chain then so be it. I guess we'll have to listen to the Alpha USB before coming to a conclusion.<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

Michael123 said: <i>"the industry leading Streamlength Asynchronous USB?</i><br />

<i>1) What is it?</i> ?<i>2) To the best of knowledge, the leading one today is of M2Tech, which is also OEM provider for few others like Esoteric and Empirical Audio."</i><br />

<br />

Here's my take - M2Tech has managed to release very inexpensive products and license its intellectual property to other manufacturers. See my review of the hiFace for one example of why I don't believe M2Tech is an industry leader.<br />

<br />

 <br />

<br />

all300b said: <i>"not a nice move</i><br />

<i>While Berkley is an interesting and innovative company this is a poor customer service move. They are charging an outrageous price for existing Berkley DAC owners to get USB out of their computer and are then crippling the solution by sending the signal through SPDIF, which adds jitter and will drive audiophile Berkley owners crazy trying to find the perfect $$$ SPDIF cable, which all sound a bit different due to the imperfect nature of SPDIF. They instead could have offered an upgrade to existing owners that converts USB to I2S internally, bypassing SPDIF as the top DACs are already doing. There will be few, if any, non-Berkley DAC customers for this because many other available boxes already pull in asynchronous USB, convert it to SPDIF using a high quality clock, and galvanically isolate the computer for less than half the money. Teardowns will show that the most abundant component inside this large $1700 box is (hot) air."</i><br />

<br />

Here's my take - I can't argue with your opinions. Value is a personal thing. I will say I disagree. I don't think the price is outrageous considering all that has gone into this converter. Sonically I can't tell until I have the piece here in my listening room. Teardowns are not commonplace in high end audio, but if one were to be done it would show Berkeley is using the best quality parts available. I frequently talked to Berkeley during the Alpha USB development process and I am pretty sure Berkeley tried every component available and settled on the pieces that produced the best sound and measurements. This does lead to higher prices, but such is life. An M2Tech hiFace is around $150 but the performance, parts quality, and implementation are subpar.

One would hope that a $1600 component would be superior to a $150 unit!<br />

Keith. ( I wonder if it is)

Gotta agree with the criticisms. Hard to see anyone buying this except for the cost-no-object audiophiles and Berkeley DAC owners. They should have offered a built-in upgrade solution bypassing the need to pick out a perfect digital cable.

So Berkley comes out with a USB solution for their Alpha DAC customers who most likely bought their's without any knowledge or promise of an USB solution, ever... and this is a bad thing? If I was a Alpha DAC customer I would think this is great. From what I know about Berkley I would venture to guess its performance is top notch and it makes existing Alpha DAC's more valuable on the used market. Again great for their customers. BTW most will use the AES over the S/PDIF I would think. I also suspect, but just guessing, that they developed this 1) to sell more Alpha DAC's 2) satisfy a want amongst their current customer base and 3) lastly sell them for use with non-Berkley DACS. I bet 1 & 2 are way ahead or 3 in their business plan.

I am sure it would please customers even more if Berkeley included this 'in the box' with new units and retro fitted older models for a reasonable charge.<br />

Keith.

Not if it compromises sound quality as they seem to be claiming.

It would seem as if others have made fine sounding DACs with them installed. It sort of reminds me of my reading that their noisy transformers were chosen because they sounded better. I could hear mine from 3 meters away in my listening seat.

Keith - As a dealer of competing products please refrain from questionable comments.

<i>"It sort of reminds me of my reading that their noisy transformers were chosen because they sounded better."</i><br />

<br />

That is 100% correct. All components were chosen for sound quality. The easy way would have been to use silent components while sacrificing quality.

100% BS. For the record, a good transformer would make no noise and sound good. The whole thing about using that one even though it was noisy is complete BS/market speak. I am not suggesting toriods either btw... Transformers are well trodden ground, and there is not much new to be had. If it indeed it were the case that one needed to make that trade, it would be evident in gear from Ayre, CJ, ARC, Mcintosh etc...<br />

<br />

I sent the Berkeley back...

Hi Forrest - I certainly don't represent Berkeley Audio Design and have no interest in debating you about the components used in the Alpha DAC. However I will say that using a transformer that made noise was a complete sonic quality decision. If you don't believe me I highly recommend you call Berkeley and talk to them about it. Your logic that other manufacturers would use noisy transformers if they were really better doesn't hold water. Most other manufacturers aren't willing to release a component that emits more than a whisper of sound for marketing purposes. People such as yourself aren't willing to live with a component that makes a bit of noise that is only audible when no music is playing. Also, not all engineers are created equal. If they were all components would be equal.

I didn't see your post drop in while I was working on mine, but I'm gald that we see eye to eye just the same. <br />

<br />

Jesus R<br />

www.sonore.us

Chris,<br />

<br />

Given the technical mambo jumbo, Do you know where this device(Alpha USB) or others like it should be placed? some other website said this needs to be kept as far away as possible??? is that true? Also you mention in another post that USB cable for playback should be not more than 3 meters.... Is it best to get 1 meter? or does the quality drop as you increase length? 2m less good than 1m...4meters and beyond not good at all? or is it about the same up to 3m and beyond that starts dropping? Cable length would also be a factor in placement of these things in relation to other components.Thanks!

I find it ridiculous that M2Tech is not considered 'an' industry leader in USB/SPIDF interfaces, and I suspect perhaps a very 'American' point of view.<br />

<br />

Maybe being in Europe we have a different perspective as certain of the Amercian USB/SPIDF manufacturers have made it difficult to try their products of here.<br />

<br />

Marco, on the other hand, gets on and sells everywhere.<br />

<br />

I also suspect had the Hiface not arrived we would all be paying a lot more for these devices, so inexpensive works for me.<br />

<br />

Thank you Marco & M2Tech.<br />

<br />

The big issue (for me) with M2Tech is it's limitation of needing custom drivers. That precludes the use of the HiFace (and their other DACs) with Linux. <br />

<br />

It is a very "American" view though. I would say Wavelength are no more an industry leader than dCS or M2Tech. Who was first with an async USB interface I don't know...<br />

<br />

Also remember that the "text" published above is a press release so terms like "industry leader" are used in a marketing context (though Chris doesn't make that clear)<br />

<br />

Eloise

Eloise I concur with all you say including the driver issue for M2Tech with Linux.<br />

<br />

The comments I was referring to were directly from Chris's post, not the press release:<br />

<br />

"Here's my take - M2Tech has managed to release very inexpensive products and license its intellectual property to other manufacturers. See my review of the hiFace for one example of why I don't believe M2Tech is an industry leader."<br />

<br />

It is a very small point whether M2Tech is 'an' or 'the' industry leader in this field, but for Chris to refer to his own review of M2Tech's ubercheap Hiface, which itself was meet with significant criticism on this forum, as a reason for M2Tech not to be at least 'an' industry leader seems a trifle unfair .

Personally I think there aren't enough good usb -> digital signal converters on the market, and I welcome more of them as well as more competition, which will hopefully lead to much lower prices. <br />

<br />

I would however hesitate to spend much on expensive converters because I still feel that this is an emerging market, and the technology has a way to go technologically and in value. <br />

<br />

It wouldn't surprise me if in a few years time, most companies like Sony will be using usb (or a better future interface that replaces usb) converters that are on a par with the HiFace, or better.<br />

<br />

The big advantages of stand alone converters is that you can upgrade independently of the dac, as well as buy excellent second-hand old dacs to use with computers.<br />

<I>"Also remember that the "text" published above is a press release so terms like "industry leader" are used in a marketing context (though Chris doesn't make that clear)"</I><br />

<br />

<br />

Hi Eloise - The opening paragraph was written by me and I am the one who said Industry Leading. I tried to make it clear I didn't write the whole text when I said the following is directly from Berkeley, also in the first paragraph.

You're right I missed that you wrote "The following information is directly from Berkeley Audio Design."<br />

<br />

Therefore, as the first paragraph was your own editorial, I must agree that comments such as "<b>the</b> industry leading" do come across as marketing spin which is not (IMO) good coming from an independent observer. There are many companies that could be described as having an industry leading implementation of USB: dCS and Wavelength for being first (not sure who was actually the first); M2Tech for bringing the costs of 24/192 down to £100 mark albeit with proprietary implementation; Musical Fidelity for bringing the cost of generic async implementations down. In fact "industry leading" doesn't mean a lot as a term except sounding good in marketing.<br />

<br />

As i recall you've observed yourself, there is no one best solution, be it interface or (in this case) "firmware" code and it's about the overall implementation. Now if you've heard the Alpha USB and it's good, then by all means say so, but your comments do come across (to me) as "this has been made by Berkeley Audio and therefore MUST beat everything else available". <br />

<br />

Sorry if my comments sound overly picky, just you have always held yourself up as an independent observer, uninfluenced by advertising revenue or market forces. So far you (to my mind) have managed to stick to those values ... I hope you don't stop now.<br />

<br />

Eloise

"It is a very "American" view though. I would say Wavelength are no more an industry leader than dCS or M2Tech. Who was first with an async USB interface I don't know..."<br />

<br />

<br />

Gordon was the first to build a USB DAC - he "discovered" the idea.<br />

<br />

Gordon was first to bring to market an Async USB DAC.<br />

<br />

Gordon was the first to write code for Async operation that does not require custom drivers.<br />

<br />

Gordon was the first to license Async code to others.<br />

<br />

I see industry leading as being about pioneering or innovating.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Franky, I don't see much room for anyway else to claim industry leading.<br />

<br />

Fast following (i.e. Industry "copying"), yes, but not industry leading.<br />

<br />

YMMV,<br />

<br />

clay<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Claims that Gordon "created" USB audio are wide of the mark if I understand correctly. Async USB Audio was "created" as part of version 1.0 of USB Audio. This (http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/audio10.pdf) was published in 1998 and Gordon Rankin does not rank amongst it's contributors.<br />

<br />

If we're being exact, dCS are the "Market leading" producer of USB to SPDIF converters being first with the Puccini U-Clock. They have a patent pending on USB to SPDIF converter incorporating a high quality word-clock. This patent application (UK) is dated September 2008. I don't know how this fits with the launch of Gordon's first DAC with async USB - all I could find were references to the launch of the Crimson with USB in 2008 (without a month) and review in Stereophile June 2009. <br />

<br />

At the end of the day, the comments were not about who created async USB, it was about an independent observer using such terms which are usually criticised as being marketing spin!<br />

<br />

Eloise

I vote for Eloise <br />

<br />

Chris, is there any chance you'll explain why you don't want to make a shoutout with all contenders (not a single word about Audiophilleo, Sonicweld, Weiss interfaces (not dacs), ... in an article) ?<br />

<br />

That would definitely close the debate, and you could still be a Berkeley Audio fan, which I find ok providing you could explain why the others are not dealt with.<br />

<br />

Elp