Article: Berkeley Audio Design Announces The Alpha USB Asynchronous Interface

[Audio_ELF]

First, no one yet knows how the async USB solution compares to the previously recommended Lynx AES16 card for connection to the Alpha DAC.<br />

<br />

The async USB is just a method of supplying a low jitter, low noise SPDIF / AES signal for the DAC.<br />

<br />

Eloise

[sq225917]

People have been waiting for this for a long time, Berkley are a much loved company, one of the few that some people feel beholden to in much the same way as Linn and Naim are in parts of Europe.<br />

<br />

The price is ballpark right for the volume of their likely sales and their market position. If Micromega can re-box an airport express for thousand euros then the price of the this converter isn't out of the ballpark. Sure it's expensive compared to a hiface, but it's not likely to be produced 'offshore' in high volumes.<br />

<br />

You would think they'd just redesign the dac though to include this, maybe they expect to mop up some as yet none Berkley customers who require a USB interface, before they move onto a new USB dac.

[audiozorro]

not a tsunami, a 9.0 earthquake or a nuclear disaster,<br />

<br />

but the patents on audio/video formats.<br />

<br />

Care to enlighten us so we can prepare for the pending doom?

[Paul R]

Google MPEG-LA and form your own opinion. They are the perfect definition, in my not so humble opinion, of a "Patent Troll." <br />

<br />

MPEG the group (NOT the same as MPEG-LA) probably will work out a royalty free compression system for "moving pictures and the associated audio", but it won't be without a fight. <br />

<br />

I am the last person in the world who would complain about artists getting paid for their work, but I do not consider organizations like MPEG-LA "artists." <br />

<br />

-Paul<br />

[lightminer]

Eloise and everyone,<br />

<br />

Interesting - I have to believe at some point that they will come out and say 'xyz is our preferred method, and the other options are for people who can't do xyz'. Most companies do that, it is probably just so early they haven't come out and said it yet.<br />

<br />

Chris - there is so much buzz around the prebuffering watchamacallit in the PS Audio PWD network card, please compare and contrast that with what you think of the Berkeley in either format when you review the asynch usb device.

[kana813]

"You would think they'd just redesign the dac though to include this, maybe they expect to mop up some as yet none Berkley customers who require a USB interface, before they move onto a new USB dac."<br />

<br />

<br />

From an eariler post:<br />

<br />

Michael Ritter: "We deliberately do not have a USB or FireWire input on the Alpha DAC due to the noise it would potentially introduce from the computer.<br />

D to A converters are both digital and analog devices, and for the best possible audio quality it is very important to keep the electrical environment inside the DAC enclosure as isolated and quiet as possible.<br />

We feel the best way for a DAC to accept a USB signal is to convert it to a balanced AES3 digital audio signal in an external device and only connect the isolated AES signal to the DAC.<br />

Since the external USB2 to AES3 converter will be designed to work with the current Alpha DAC there will be no upgrade required and no product obsolescence."<br />

<br />

[DaveLew]

Translation, we've hidden our religious views about interfaces behind the rhetoric of engineering.

[Jud]

Berkeley Audio Design, in describing why they didn't implement a USB input in a one-box design, said "for the best possible audio quality it is very important to keep the electrical environment inside the DAC enclosure as isolated and quiet as possible."<br />

<br />

DaveLew responds, "Translation, we've hidden our religious views about interfaces behind the rhetoric of engineering."<br />

<br />

It's "religion" to keep electrical noise isolated as much as possible from the business end of audio equipment that includes analog circuits? Drive under high-tension lines with a car radio that has an AM band. That audio noise ain't God talkin'.

[kdubious]

Nobody talks about the Audio Research DAC8 here. In their marketing content:<br />

"The DAC8 is a fully balanced, zero-feedback, solid-state design utilizing a direct-coupled FET output stage with generous regulated power supplies and seven stages of regulation. There are separate new digital and audio power transformers, and the board material is the same as what we use in our Reference products."<br />

AND<br />

"All inputs are galvanically isolated from the source to reduce or eliminate noise and/or jitter from entering the DAC8"<br />

<br />

Is it safe to assume that they have addressed all the issues that the dual product Berkeley design addresses?

[losingmyreligion]

<br />

"Is it safe to assume that they have addressed all the issues that the dual product Berkeley design addresses?"<br />

<br />

Nope, as evidence please note that several people have reported that the DAC8 sounds better via a USB->S/PDIF converter such as a Wavelink.<br />

<br />

<br />

[Phil C]

I listen to music on my Win7 PC via a USB cable connected to my DAC’s USB connection which is limited to 24/96kHz. The DAC also has an SPDIF connection that can accept up to 24/192kHz. If I use the Berkeley Alpha USB Asynchronous Interface to convert USB to SPDIF and then connect to the DAC’s SPDIF, <em>could I then listen to 24/192kHz music?</em> If so, then isn’t that another good reason for a USB to SPDIF converter?

[firedog]

Yes Phil, that is exactly the reason many people want a quality converter. The truth is that until the last year or two, there weren't any USB DACs that could do hi-res. So lots of audiophiles are in your position.

[labjr]

If you don't need the AES connection there are other choices for less money like the Wavelink which will work well for 24/192.

[all300b]

| As evidence please note that several people have reported that the DAC8 sounds better via a USB->S/PDIF converter such as a Wavelink.<br />

<br />

It's difficult to consider anecdotal reports as "evidence."- there is no denominator. It may be that the AR solution is not yet perfect with respect to the code for asynchronous transfer, the clocking scheme, and electrical isolation of the USB input.<br />

<br />

However, this does NOT imply that the solution should be to send the USB signal to an extra box, extract and recode the signal and clock into a flawed format (SPDIF), send it out again across a cable that has intrinsic issues with impedance matching, and then re-extract and decode the signal and clock. Silly.<br />

<br />

These are solvable problems that do not require extra boxes or intermediate legacy formats. And the Berkley converter is nowhere near as interesting looking as the Nakamichi Dragon cassette deck- it will be a paper weight in 2020- likely earlier.<br />

<br />

[4est]

"However, this does NOT imply that the solution should be to send the USB signal to an extra box, extract and recode the signal and clock into a flawed format (SPDIF), send it out again across a cable that has intrinsic issues with impedance matching, and then re-extract and decode the signal and clock. Silly."<br />

<br />

Silly, really? If is sounds better, I so not see what the problem is. Not that I would buy one, but I wouldn't want to wait in hopes that ARC got it together and fixed it.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

I'm with Forrest on this one, a fact that I'm sure alarms him greatly. But seriously, what's the big deal? Sure, there may be very good theoretical reasons why using an external, secondary, device is suboptimal. On the other hand, there may be very good practical reasons why an external, secondary, device is preferable. In lieu of having access to not only the "right" theory, but also all of the relevant facts, there is an eminently sensible (and empirical!) way to go about discovering the answer: try it and see.<br />

<br />

"In theory", you may well be quite right. "In practice", however, it may prove to be the case that reality shows something quite otherwise. The question, then, is to interpret what that delta implies for your theory. <br />

<br />

Something to make you go "hmmmm."

[Paul R]

I had to think about this one, but the very same reasoning applies to USB data links as to S/PDIF. <br />

<br />

And S/PDIF is better understood, and has been engineered to for a lot longer. <br />

<br />

In short, there are some very very good boxes, Benchmark for one, that sound much better than their price would suggest, using S/PDIF connections. That is much more true when you give them a low jitter connection. <br />

<br />

In other words, a S/PDIF converter is sometimes a very good idea indeed. Usually people arguing for the high end of any audio argument demand separate components for separate tasks - why should a great DAC be abandoned because it does not do USB well, when a $170 device will handle the USB interface very well indeed?<br />

<br />

-Paul<br />

[4est]

I have no allegiances, and the equipment are just tools. If it makes something I have better, I might buy it!

[losingmyreligion]

"It's difficult to consider anecdotal reports as "evidence"."<br />

<br />

The anecdotal reports (by many folks here, including the well known Peter McGrath) are a damn sight more useful than any Manufacturer's marketing literature, about which the poster asked if it was "safe to assume that they have addressed all the issues that the dual product Berkeley design addresses?"<br />

<br />

To that question, I said nope. You disagree. Do you have any evidence that suggests they indeed have "addressed all the issues" that the Berkeley design addresses? <br />

<br />

I'll even accept anecdotal evidence ... but not the very unlikely scenario (that you posit) in which AR somehow solved the most challenging issue facing DAC designers today, and yet screwed up their async USB implementation so badly that the flawed S/PDIF input still sounds better. <br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[jm5546]

I currently own a BADA, and am quite pleased with it's peformance. Im my opinion, the Berkeley USB converter is a product that few will be interested in. There are numerous other products that do the same task, at a significantly lower cost. Indeed, at Berkeley's price point for this converter, one could obtain a very capable USB DAC. <br />

<br />

Note to Berkeley....You're only about two years late with this. Rather than developing an outdated product, you should have put your efforts into an Alpha DAC upgrade that could take on the Weiss 202.

[DanH]

In his original post, Chris said the interface would ship in about four weeks. Has anyone heard anything? Those guys over at Berkeley are notoriously slow, and I wouldn't be surprised if four became eight became twelve, but since they're allegedly taking orders now I'm hopeful they might actually deliver "on schedule." Has anyone seen a review at least?

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Apparently, there have been some manufacturing delays so those estimates are slipping. I've been given no ETA on my order.

[DanH]

I shouldn't have sold my Halide so fast.

[fjmcsu]

I ordered mine paid in full April 1 and was told approximately 4 weeks, so no word yet! Thankfully still have the Halide!

[fjmcsu]

The latest timeline appears to be late June early July. Apparent problems with part quality of a supplier which were rejected and had to be re-done.