Jump to content
IGNORED

New Berkeley DAC? This article implies as much but ... ?


Recommended Posts

Mono and Stereo High-End Audio Magazine: Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series

 

 

Talk about bad journalism....a picture, a totally vague statement, then a link to the Berkeley site that makes no mention of a new DAC....I would be keenly interested and have always wondered when these guys would jump into the newer DAC market having set the baseline for complete high fidelity digital for so many years.

 

Any one have any news?

 

Cheers,

WDW

Yes, this has been in the works for a very long time. I can't wait to get the review sample.

image.jpg

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
They pretty clearly took a page from Peter St's book in coupling the DAC to software specially designed for it. As with XX High End software and the Phasure NOS1 DAC, Berkeley is having the software take on a significant amount of the processing that is usually reserved for the DAC.

It may appear that way but that's not the case. Berkeley simply believes in converting DSD in a PC rather than in the DAC. They also prefer this takes place off line, not while listening.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Why not let the player software do the DSD to PCM conversion by itself and avoid the extra step of the provided software. Jriver and A+ are well capable of such situations which are routine. Extra steps just get in the way and generate extra processing, along with increased ground plane activity, plus goodness knows what compatibility issues with OS updates.

 

PeterST is quite capable of tuning his software to his NOS DAC, could BADA offer the same ability?

 

DSD has demonstrated a clear ability to sound "as good as the master tapes get", conversion to PCM to comply with the philosophy of the 'Waldrep Foundation' is a commercial choice that BADA has made, surprisingly with doubling the asking price to an existing similar (on paper) design.

 

Plus, you need to buy a separate USB to SPDIF converter ~~~ another $2k-$10k(?) and from whom?

 

Expectation bias is wound up to power 11 for this one, it had better sound good, darn good.

The player such as JRMC or A+ can convert on the fly no problem. Berkeley is just a proponent of offline processing to PCM. This means do it once and be done with it as well. Berkeley isn't going down the Peter St. Path of tuning software for its DACs. Berkeley is more in the straight up PCM but perfect clean signal camp.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Hi Chris, thanks for clearing up the conversion to PCM. Right now I am using my Mac Mini and A+ to play DSD files that I have ripped from my SACD's. They go into my BADA2 through the Berkeley USB already converted to 176/24. Sounds pretty good, but I don't have a true DSD player to compare.

 

If I understand correctly, the new Berkeley DAC comes with software one installs in their PC or Mac which converts the DSD files (stereo ones only I assume) to 176/24 PCM files. The new Berkeley DAC then plays those converted files. If so, if one has the software and converts the files, then one should be able to play them through a BADA2 with similar results to the new Berkeley DAC. Or am I missing something important here?

 

Also if the files are preconverted offline - say if I have 1TB of DSD files, looks like I will be generating another 1TB or so of 176/24 PCM files from the software. Again, am I missing something?

 

Thanks, Larry

HI Larry - Good questions. You and most people are over thinking this one. Berkeley simply recommends converting DSD to PCM offline. To do this Berkeley is including software that will do the conversion just so its customers can convert if needed. The converted files won't be anything special, but may sound different based on the math used by the conversion app.

 

What you are doing now, DSD to PCM with A+, will work identically on the Alpha Reference Series.

 

People will need to do some offline conversion and some real time conversion to see if they hear a difference or to see if the like the sound of one over the other. Also, the software converters will be different.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Asking you to convert by software DSD to PCM is, to me, some kind of joke, if they merchandise his new product as a DSD capable DAC.

Hi Roch - There will never be a consensus on the best way to play DSD, that's for sure. However, the engineering and technical reasons for converting to PCM outside the DAC have a lot of merit.

 

John Stronczer of Bel Canto has some solid reasoning for converting to PCM outside the DAC as well. Here is a link to his PDF - > http://www.belcantodesign.com/pdfs/Optimal_DSD_Playback.pdf

 

I still haven't selected a side yet and don't know if I will. Every DAC may be different.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I suspect the Playback Designs along with EMM labs is part of the 1% DACs with true 1 bit architectures, and 1% should really be 5% (BADA marketing getting carried away a bit).

 

I'm interested in the correct percentage. I'm willing to bet it's closer to 0.05% of DACs have a true 1 bit architecture. Maybe a thread discussing true 1 bit DACs is in order?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Why do you assume the Loki is a solution.

1) it is AKM and part of the 99%

2) how do you plan to manage two USB streams, two USB drivers? The Schiit "passthru" approach is ill-conceived IMHO. No one would want to constantly change drivers in their player software just to listen to a new format playlist, especially when most players/audio stacks need to see the DAC first (i.e may need to power off server to refresh the DAC driver)? To my stupid brain the best way is to have two servers and two inputs at the preamp (which means not going through an additional "passthru" connection). And a remote input capability. Argh, seems a lot of work.

 

Sorry for the hijack. Back on topic:

I am going to ask some DAC mfg'ers like Michal from Mytek to chime in. Seems he was adamant that multi-bit DSD is not at all the same (i.e it's much better) as simply converting to 24/176k PCM. I could be wrong.

Hi Ted (and others) - Please keep this thread about the new Berkeley DAC. I highly encourage you and everyone to starts a DSD architecture thread or something similar so we can get more information.

 

Thanks.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I wonder if they understand difference between multi-bit PCM and multi-bit SDM and if they understand how multi-bit SDM converter chips work inside. So is their DAC R2R ladder or is it delta-sigma converter, and why do they think their running oversampling and delta-sigma modulation in hardware/realtime inside DAC is not a problem, but doing inverse process is?

I'm not speaking for Berkeley Audio Design in any way, but I assure you they understand this stuff very well. Brilliant is an appropriate description for Michael “Pflash” Pflaumer.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Chris- How you would use a word clock in computer audio?

 

I guess you would have an audio card with a word clock input and find playback software that uses the input. I'm not aware of any that does that outside the professional realm. Just connecting the word clock to the DAC alone would not do much good unless the DAC had a really poor clock, correct?

Hi VandyMan - Good question. Word clock is a strange concept to most computer audiophiles.

 

Two common ways to use word clock with computer audio.

 

1. Use a Lynx or RME card in a desktop PC with a DAC that sends word clock out to the card. The Lynx or RME software is set to accept incoming word clock. The playback software is usually unaware of the configuration. A major pit fall can be manual word clock adjustments when switching sample rates.

 

2. Using an Aurender W20 that has dual AES output and word clock input with a DAC that sends out word clock and accepts dual AES input (dual AES not required though). I just used this configuration at the Magico factory (Aurender W20 with dCS Vivaldi). The Vivaldi (Master) sends word clock to the W20 (Slave). This configuration is all automatic. No manual switching of sample rate required.

 

Note regarding async v. word clock etc... Based on my experience with many async USB DACs and systems that use external word clock, I think a state of the art externally clocked system can outperform async USB. For example, a dCS Vivaldi & Aurender W20 combination sounds best using AES and external clock. Both systems have state of the art USB implementations for comparison.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I own a lynx card and asked their technical support. Here is the email thread:

 

From: [email protected]

To: Erik Dorr

Subject: RE: AES16 card

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:03:23 -0700

 

 

Erik,

 

Good question. Easy answer. No.

 

Any external clock will add jitter to the AES16e card. The low jitter SynchroLock clock on the AES16e is the best way to go.

 

We have done several tests here, clocking our products to external word clocks, including the very high end Antelope unit. In all cases, the jitter was increased.

 

Thanks,

 

Phil Moon

 

Lynx Studio Technology

 

190 McCormick Avenue

Costa Mesa CA 92626

Phone: 714-545-4700 x 204

Fax: 714-545-4777

 

 

From: Erik Dorr

Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:30 AM

To: Phil Moon

Subject: RE: AES16 card

 

Phil, I have my AES16e card up and running in a HTPC application, feeding straight into the DACs. My question is do you think SQ would materially benefit from a reasonably priced external word clock, such as the Antelope OCX?

 

Isochrone OCX | Antelope Audio

Very interesting. Thanks for proving the info.

 

I won't say I've heard the opposite about SynchroLock from the same person, but a couple years ago I heard the opposite second hand.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Hi Guys - I received a response from Berkeley Audio Design regarding DSD, PCM, and some items that have been said in this thread. What follows was written completely by Berkeley Audio Design and doesn't necessarily express the opinion of CA.

 

 

 

 

DSD versus PCM and the Berkeley Audio Design approach

12/19/13

 

 

In a recent thread on the Computer Audiophile site, The Multibit DSD debate, an obvious point is stated correctly; it is the sound quality of an overall system that really matters and that sound quality is judged by listening to analog signals. There are many factors that affect sound quality in any specific system, and attributing the differences to only one factor is always an oversimplification.

 

 

There is also a great deal of confusion between DSD and delta-sigma modulation evident in the discussion posts, with DSD being frequently used to refer to delta-sigma. For the purposes of an audiophile discussion, DSD and PCM are delivery / storage formats, and are distinct from the design of data converters and the processing that goes on as part of the conversion process. Delivery / storage formats and the design of data converters should be analyzed separately, since various designs use varying combinations of techniques.

 

 

Direct-Stream Digital (DSD) is the trademark name used by Sony for the raw data output of a 1-bit delta-sigma modulator (DSM), originally coming straight from the A/D, which can then be sent to a 1-bit D/A. This is an idea that is appealing in its simplicity, but in practice it is not so simple, and has its own problems and sonic signature that are different from those of conventional PCM. (More below)

 

 

In evaluating the merits of a delivery / storage format, it is useful to look at its information carrying capacity versus the information rate of the signal that it is delivering - in this case, high quality audio. The information carrying requirement is most easily calculated based on the required dynamic range and frequency extension of the audio signal. In the early days of digital audio, when digital bandwidth was very expensive, many people tackled this question with a goal of picking a minimum information rate that would be considered high fidelity, and the CD was the commercial result. Good, but not really good enough for audiophiles, hence the interim fixes and now hi-res.

 

 

The required dynamic range, as determined by human physiology, to reproduce the full range of audible sound is generally agreed to be about 120 dB, or 20 bit linear PCM resolution. The dynamic range that most transducers can handle well is less, so a delivery format that can provide 120 dB of dynamic range is sufficient. Note that professional formats used for editing, EQing, and processing need to be of higher resolution to produce a good 20 bit result in the final release.

 

 

The required bandwidth, or frequency extension to reproduce the full range of audible sound, is not as well agreed upon as the dynamic range. For steady tones, the physiological limit is around 20 kHz. There is some controversial research indicating the physiology responds to higher frequencies directly, but a more important consideration is that more bandwidth is required to reproduce realistic sounding transients. (Long, complex discussion) Most researchers conclude that a 50-60 kHz bandwidth is enough.

 

 

From the above, it can be concluded that 24-bit 176.4 kHz linear PCM has room to spare in both dynamic range and bandwidth to deliver all perceptible audio content. DSD64x falls a bit short, although it is better than a 16-bit 44.1 kHz CD. DSD128x is capable of hitting the goal with some fancy shaping of the noise floor, which may have audible consequences. (More below)

 

 

Regarding our approach of converting DSD to 24-bit 176.4 kHz linear PCM: We are simply converting one delivery format to another that has greater useful information carrying capacity. It is easy to see that 176/24 has more than enough information bandwidth to carry all of the information in DSD64x. It is possible to put the entire bit stream of a DSD64x signal in 2/3 of the bits of a 176/24 signal, as is done in DoP. It might be argued that because raw DSD128x will not fit in the bits of a 176/24 signal, information is lost. However, when the efficiency of the formats for carrying useful audio information is considered, it becomes clear that 176/24 is still more than sufficient to carry all of the audio information in DSD128x. DSD does not make good use of the available information bandwidth. The conversion process from DSD to PCM can be done with very high precision using digital filtering that is stable and predictable, and especially if done off line, it can preserve all useful audio information so that nothing is lost.

 

 

Since the only valid way that an end user can evaluate a given delivery format is by listening to the end result in an entire system, and since the adequacy of the various delivery formats has been discussed, we will now consider A/D and D/A converters and other system level issues. Here again, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the discussion posts.

 

 

One of the problems with trying to evaluate digital audio systems, especially DSD, is the huge number of possible variations in implementation. When recordings are specified as 24-bit 176.4 kHz PCM for instance, at least the character of the delivery channel is well known, and the variations in quality from one to another can be attributed to the quality of A/D conversion and the quality of the source itself. The channel is generally understood to have a spectrally flat noise floor that is well below the noise of the converter and the source. The same cannot be said for DSD.

 

 

With DSD, the delta-sigma modulator used to encode the audio in the 1-bit stream has a profound influence on the recording, and the variations in implementation are almost endless. The order of the DSM process is a major factor: the higher the order of the modulator, the greater the dynamic range that can be achieved in a given bandwidth, but at a price. The more one reduces the noise floor in the audio band, the faster the noise rises out of band. It’s like squeezing on a partially inflated balloon – you squeeze in one place and it pops out somewhere else. Also, the in-band noise floor generated by the modulator is normally not flat. Frequently, the noise floor in-band is shaped deliberately to put more dynamic range at frequencies where the ear is most sensitive. This has its own artifacts and sonic signature, most notably in level dependent shifts in instrument timbre. (Does anyone remember Sony’s Super Bit Mapping?)

 

 

Another factor that produces large variations in the system level reproduction of DSD is out-of-band noise. At least some of that noise must be filtered out – the question is how much, and D/A converter designers have a wide range of opinions on that subject. What complicates the decision is the fact that the analog electronics downstream have widely varying tolerances for high levels of high frequencies, and at some point they all become distressed. Typically, high levels of high frequencies cause some part of an amplifier, usually inside a feedback loop, to go into slew-rate limiting, which produces distortion. At onset, it may sound like a softening of the sound, which may be interpreted as euphonic, but it is also a loss of information and addition of distortion.

 

 

In ‘native DSD’ D/A converters, the filtering of the out-of-band noise must be done with an analog filter, and good quality analog filters are expensive and subject to drift with temperature, as well as sometimes requiring tuning during production. They also tend to introduce phase distortion near the filter’s corner frequency and hence also in the audio band. Because of this, ‘native DSD’ D/A converters often produce higher levels of high frequency out-of-band noise to keep the filter simple.

 

 

In contrast, conversion of the 1-bit DSD stream to multi-bit PCM in the digital domain can be done with digital filters, which are stable and, if well designed, free of most of the problems of analog versions. They can also be easily made selectable, even on a recording by recording basis. This is another argument for doing DSD to PCM conversion off-line. The noise floor of each recording can be reviewed before conversion using a spectrum display, often built into the converter, and then pick the optimal filter for the particular DSD delta-sigma modulator used to make the recording. It is only necessary to do this once. This is one of those things that can satisfy an audiophile who likes to tweak his or her system in a way that was common with analog sources but has largely gone away with digital.

 

 

We stand behind our statement that the vast majority of D/A converters currently on the market, including ours, use multi-bit delta-sigma converters. Originally, monolithic converters went from ladder structures at low oversampling ratios to single bit high oversampling ratios because better performance could be achieved at lower cost for mid-fi consumer CD players. It was not until the problem of element matching was solved that multi-bit high oversampling became practical. It has now taken over the high quality end of the market for both professional and high-end audiophile equipment because multi-bit delta-sigma converters produce very high performance without placing a large burden on the product designer.

 

 

One of the most important advantages of 5-6 bit delta-sigma converters is that the delta-sigma modulator can be low order and still meet dynamic range requirements. The result is that the noise floor rises very slowly as one goes up in frequency above the audio band, and therefore, the analog filter following the converter can be simple.

 

 

The above provides the answer to an intelligent question asked in the CA discussion; why go from single bit DSD to PCM to multi-bit delta-sigma conversion to analog. DSD has large amounts of high frequency noise, which can be easily filtered out digitally in the conversion to high bit precision PCM. The PCM can then be processed normally, including controlling level and up-sampling, and then a 5-6 bit lower order delta-sigma modulator drives the DAC with very slowly rising noise at the output and simple analog filtering.

 

 

Multi-bit delta-sigma audio very definitely is PCM, and represents coarsely quantized whole output sample values being sent to a linear PCM DAC. The fact that it is noise shaped does not negate the fact that it is linear PCM. The assertion that delta-sigma is the difference between adjacent samples of PCM is incorrect: that would be delta modulation, a precursor to delta-sigma modulation. Delta modulation for high quality audio was abandoned decades ago because it has a very serious limitation – it is slew limited by nature. The maximum value of the small difference word must be added repeatedly to the total to make a large level change. As a result, in order to reproduce high level, high frequency signals such as cymbal crashes, the delta modulation coder requires extremely high sample rates. For single bit delta modulation (the only version that was widely used in practice) achieving CD level performance requires multi-gigahertz clocking.

 

 

Further evidence that multi-bit delta-sigma data is PCM is the fact that recovering an audio signal after D/A conversion simply requires a low-pass filter with a flat frequency response in the pass band. If it were delta modulation, as has been claimed, an integrator would be required, which has a 6 dB/octave attenuation slope in the pass band.

 

 

It has been correctly stated that a single bit DAC has perfect linearity. However, eliminating amplitude linearity requirements has a side effect of increasing timing accuracy requirements. The high precision requirement has been moved from the amplitude domain to the time domain. 1-bit DAC’s are very jitter sensitive, and require much better clocking than multi-bit DAC’s. This is a perfect example of the design tradeoffs that designers face.

 

 

 

 

BTW, a misconception posted in the discussion needs to be corrected; Keith Johnson has no connection to Berkeley Audio Design and he was not involved in designing any of our products. He remains a close personal friend of ours, but that is the extent of his involvement.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
OK, so they just demonstrated that they don't understand how multi-bit delta-sigma DACs or multi-element 1-bit delta-sigma DACs are constructed... :D

 

I'm becoming to conclusion that I don't buy DACs anymore from people who use DAC chips, unless the price is very low (then I can accept it for price reasons).

 

IIRC, Charles said once that people who use op-amps don't understand how to design an analog circuit. Now I feel that people who use DAC chips don't understand how to design a converter...

Miska - Your bold statements are starting to make me think you don't understand what you're talking about. Suggesting Berkeley Audio Design doesn't under stand this is preposterous. Please explain what lead you to this conclusion.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...