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

[edorr]

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?

 

Once this DAC hits the market, I predict there will be some commotion and a lot of manufacturers will feel compelled to prove their true "1-bit" credentials. It will be an interesting spectacle.....

[ted_b]

Thanks for posting. Those guys are no joke! Watching this closely...

 

Looks like they are still keeping USB external.

 

I'd just rock this thing with the Schiit Loki for DSD. Done.

 

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

[elcorso]

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.

 

Hi Chris,

 

I totally agree that the best way to convert PCM to DSD is out of the DAC. Is the way I do it on some rare and special music I like, that is in PCM only format, but not on the fly.

 

Stronczer paper regarding DSD upper noise is not of my interest since I can't hear this noise on real life when I play DSD files. I'm definitely not a 'graph man' is those graph doesn't match what I'm listening. Even if out thread, I can absolutely reconfirm this with the use of SDXC card for music storage (or from an very low latency SATA III SSD).

 

I'm very glad Berkeley comes with another possible solution.

 

Again, just my opinion,

 

Roch

[tubesound]

I don't know (never listened) to MSB, but please try Playback Designs and the 'deliver' could change your mind, or even the Lampizator DSD only (at a lesser price).

 

I believe Berkeley is a good company, but a PCM company too, since their famous ADC converter & recordings.

 

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.

 

If I like blondes, I would like a real, not a brunette with dyed hair.

 

Just my opinion,

 

Roch

 

Weiss believes high rez PCM is superior to DSD (Weiss On DSD…Gets It Right! | Real HD-Audio). They do DSD-to-PCM internally before reaching the DAC chip. Weiss has released the INT204, a DSD-to-PCM converter.

 

BTW, Audiogate is another good DSD to PCM conversion software: AudioGate - Audio Format Conversion Application - | KORG

[TarnishedEars]

From Wizard High-End Audio Blog: Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9183[/ATTACH]

We could, like many other manufacturers, convert 1-bit DSD to multi-bit within the Alpha DAC Reference Series and show “DSD” in the front panel display. That would be the easiest approach from a marketing perspective. But that would also mean increasing the amount of processing in the DAC during playback which would degrade audio quality, and audio quality is the reason the Alpha Reference Series exists.

 

Fortunately, virtually all reproduction of DSD files using external DAC’s occurs with a computer based music server as the source. If the 1-bit DSD to multi-bit conversion is done first in the computer it can be performed with extremely high precision and superior filtering that preserves all of the content of the DSD file. Computer DSD to multi-bit conversion can be at least as good as that performed in a DAC and without adding processing noise near or in the D/A converter chip. Another advantage of computer based DSD to PCM conversion is that if higher performance DSD versions such as DSD 4x appear in the future they can easily be supported with a software upgrade.

I have tremendous respect for this DAC and for its designers. However these paragraphs sounds like pure marketing spin to me.

 

Virtually all modern DACs are Delta-Sigma designs (Note: this may not be the case with the Berkeley). And multi-bit internally means anywhere from 2.5 bits to 6 bits from what I understand. So converting DSD to 24 bit PCM is NOT what native DSD capable DACs do (as these paragraphs imply).

 

The fact is that the engineers at Berkeley simply are not in the DSD camp, never have been, and probably never will be. And they probably didn't want to compromise PCM playback in any way, which supporting DSD arguably may involve; especially if this is indeed a true multi-bit DAC implementation. But the marketing guys wanted to somehow spin this as natively supporting DSD, which it is not.

 

That's not to say that the results of this engineering decision won't be superb. But the proof of this remains in the listening.

[edorr]

Virtually all modern DACs are Delta-Sigma designs (Note: this may not be the case with the Berkeley). And multi-bit internally means anywhere from 2.5 bits to 6 bits from what I understand. So converting DSD to 24 bit PCM is NOT what native DSD capable DACs do (as these paragraphs imply).

 

No. They just say that native DSD DACs constitute 1% of the population of DSD capable DACs.

[Paul R]

I gotta admit to some confusion. Obviously, many people, including myself, think the Berkeley DAC is about "as good as it gets" - but I am a little confused about their stance on DSD. If I understand correctly, they are saying "Pre-convert any DSD audio files you have to PCM, and we will give you a software utility to do that if we need to.

 

I was under the impression that processing native DSD streams was simpler than processing PCM streams, both in software and in hardware. Simpler processing often equals better sound. Ergo, convert everything to DSD first and then process DSD in the DAC.

 

Is that an incorrect assumption, or am I just not understanding what the Berkeley people are really saying?

 

-Paul

[elcorso]

Weiss believes high rez PCM is superior to DSD (Weiss On DSD…Gets It Right! | Real HD-Audio). They do DSD-to-PCM internally before reaching the DAC chip. Weiss has released the INT204, a DSD-to-PCM converter.

 

What Daniel Weiss believes, is, well, what he believes...

 

I don't know how he came to this statement since declared he designs his gear without the use of listening tests, and people buy his gear based on his good name and reputation! But I don't...

 

 

BTW, Audiogate is another good DSD to PCM conversion software: AudioGate - Audio Format Conversion Application - | KORG

 

Korg released this wonderful piece of software for people that doesn't have a DSD capable DAC. Or for crazy people like me that converts PCM to DSD. BTW Korg has nice ADC, DAC and synthesizers.

 

I'm sorry but we are going (as always) out of thread (and the digital world to DSD).

 

Roch

[tubesound]

What Daniel Weiss believes, is, well, what he believes...

 

I don't know how he came to this statement since declared he designs his gear without the use of listening tests, and people buy his gear based on his good name and reputation! But I don't...

 

BTW Korg has nice ADC, DAC and synthesizers.

 

I don't have the technical knowledge to make my own judgement. My point is that in addition to Berkely, there are other audio manufacturers in favor of high rez PCM over DSD, like Weiss and Ayre.

 

Korg is going to release this new DSD DAC soon: DS-DAC-100 1bit USB-DACbKORG INC. they claim it has 1-bit DSD processing which appears weird to me as CS4398 is a 24-bit chip?

[audio.bill]

The rumor is that Berkeley's software is an included copy of JRiver. However, JRIver currently only does DSD-to-PCM offline into 24/352.8K.

Ted, JRiver defaults to the 352.8k sampling frequency when doing DSD to PCM offline conversion, but it does allow you to select a lower frequency like 176.4k as detailed in the applicable document by Bel Canto Design.

[TarnishedEars]

No. They just say that native DSD DACs constitute 1% of the population of DSD capable DACs.

Perhaps. But they still imply that the other 99% DSD-Capable DACs are converting the DSD to PCM before conversion, which is not true. Modern multi-bit Delta-Sigma DACs employ between 2.5 and 6 bits internally inside of their sigma-delta processing engines.

[Miska]

This is very interesting. They are basically saying, we don't do true 1-bit DSD, never have and never will, and 99% of manufacturers claiming they do, don't really do native DSD because they convert to multi-bit, which sounds better anyway.

 

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?

[edorr]

Perhaps. But they still imply that the other 99% DSD-Capable DACs are converting the DSD to PCM before conversion, which is not true. Modern multi-bit Delta-Sigma DACs employ between 2.5 and 6 bits internally inside of their sigma-delta processing engines.

 

They are saying " So, at some point, the 1-bit DSD stream must be converted to multi-bit for all of those DAC’s.", which is technically correct.

 

They then go on to say that "this conversion" is better done offline - however the offline conversion they are alluding to is DSD to PCM (which is not the same as what happens real time in the DAC), so this is indeed a little misleading.

[Miska]

they claim it has 1-bit DSD processing which appears weird to me as CS4398 is a 24-bit chip?

 

CS4398 accepts 24-bit PCM input, but that's where the 24-bit part ends...

[Miska]

They are saying " So, at some point, the 1-bit DSD stream must be converted to multi-bit for all of those DAC’s.", which is technically correct.

 

Well, it's not. There's no reason why it would have to. And even if it becomes multi-bit thermometer code, it has hardly a "conversion".

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

[ted_b]

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.

 

Chris, can you have them come on and answer some questions? We are all wondering why multibit SDM is being characterized as multibit PCM (i.e Sonoma has never been called anything but "pure DSD' yet it's roughly 8 bit 2.6Mhz; Mytek is 4-5 bit 2.6mhz, etc..those ain't 24/176k PCM.)? There seems to be a truth in there somewhere, but by Berkeley's standards (which as I said are refreshingly transparent, but bold) the Sonoma is PCM and part of the 99%.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris, can you have them come on and answer some questions?

I'll give it a shot.

[TarnishedEars]

They are saying " So, at some point, the 1-bit DSD stream must be converted to multi-bit for all of those DAC’s.", which is technically correct.

 

They then go on to say that "this conversion" is better done offline - however the offline conversion they are alluding to is DSD to PCM (which is not the same as what happens real time in the DAC), so this is indeed a little misleading.

But they are equating this internal multi-bit delta-sigma processing (with as few as 2.5 bits), with a full 24 bit PCM conversion. These are NOT one in the same thing, and the literature is blatantly misleading in that it implies that these processes are equivalent when they are not.

 

FWIW: I'm not passing any judgements here about whether they way that they are doing this is a good idea or not. I know that Berkeley makes some of the very finest PCM DACs ever made. I'm just saying that the marketing literature is extremely misleading by implying equivalence of converting DSD to PCM, to the internal multi-bit delta-sigma processing inside of most DSD-capable DAC chips.

[Miska]

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?

 

OK, can someone now give an official technical definition of "true 1-bit architecture", something that is specific enough?

[Miska]

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.

 

I'm still somehow getting picture from lot of marketing material, that companies don't really understand how the chips they use really work inside...

[ted_b]

Ted, JRiver defaults to the 352.8k sampling frequency when doing DSD to PCM offline conversion, but it does allow you to select a lower frequency like 176.4k as detailed in the applicable document by Bel Canto Design.

 

Bill,

I was only commenting about offline processing; otherwise if you do on-the-fly aren't you possibly risking the same unnecessary noise and cpu resources (varies with server horsepower, of course) too near the signal path, almost the exact reason Berkeley wants it removed from their own signal path.

[Miska]

I was only commenting about offline processing; otherwise if you do on-the-fly aren't you possibly risking the same unnecessary noise and cpu resources (varies with server horsepower, of course) too near the signal path, almost the exact reason Berkeley wants it removed from their own signal path.

 

What is the issue if there is good isolation from the computer?

 

I have for example split processing and playback to separate computers. Processing computer runs in my office while playback computer runs in the listening room.

[wisnon]

Why do we need any bits at all for DSD?

 

Just filter the stream in the analog domain and pure magic comes out.

 

Sometimes the simplest way is by far the most elegant.