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

[Miska]

Just an observation, but if I spent $15k on a DAC and another $2K on an USB2S/PDIF converter to drive that DAC, I would convert all of my music library to the optimum form for that DAC without a second thought.

 

For such expensive system I would buy a purpose built computer and not worry about such annoyances as converting files. Investing another $15k on a computer would buy pretty nice one.

 

And in any case for that money you should get a system already that is not really sensitive to computer...

[wkhanna]

Just an observation, but if I spent $15k on a DAC and another $2K on an USB2S/PDIF converter to drive that DAC, I would convert all of my music library to the optimum form for that DAC without a second thought.

 

Perhaps that plays a part in Berkeley's thinking.

 

Paul

 

If I was spending $17k on a DAC & sundries I might expect someone on my humble domestic staff to do it for me.

[The Computer Audiophile]

The Alpha Reference Series DAC has no USB input. Berkeley Audio Design has previously stated why it believes an external USB digital to digital converter is better and hasn't changed its belief.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I heard from my dealer that it includes USB and does 384k...

Wow, that's interesting and plain wrong.

 

By the way, I have your Pass INT-30A in right now. It's a fine piece.

[edorr]

The Alpha Reference Series DAC has no USB input. Berkeley Audio Design has previously stated why it believes an external USB digital to digital converter is better and hasn't changed its belief.

 

I'm surprised they don't have an I2S output on their converter and I2S input on their DAC.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm surprised they don't have an I2S output on their converter and I2S input on their DAC.

Why?

[edorr]

Why?

 

Not without controversy, but a lot of manufacturers believe I2S is the best way to transmit data between a source and a DAC (provided you use a very short run cable).

[Audio_ELF]

Not without controversy, but a lot of manufacturers believe I2S is the best way to transmit data between a source and a DAC (provided you use a very short run cable).

And a lot of other manufacturers think i2s is the work of the devil outside the box...

 

I would suspect that if you did use i2s this way it would eliminate the point of the USB interface being separate anyway.

 

Eloise

[barrows]

Actually, on I2S, it is an excellent way to send digital audio between source and DAC. What some fail to realize is that there is a difference between LVDS I2S, and normal single ended I2S used inside the chassis for very short paths.

LVDS I2S, as used by PS Audio, Audiobyte, W4S, K&K Audio, and a couple of others, is a balanced version of I2S, and is totally happy running for a couple of meters along an appropriate cable with no additional jitter. Do not believe those who mistakenly say I2S is not appropriate for use between chassis, they are incorrect.

 

And on the the new Alpha II. Personally, I am more interested in hearing details of conversion (is it R2R or DSM?) power supplies, and output stage topologies, along with digital filter(s) and whether or not it is using an asynchronous sample rate converter than debating DSD and USB. Clearly, this is a straight PCM/SPDIF input DAC, and that is not going to change…

[junker]

Thanks for the clarification Chris!

 

 

The Class A Pass is muy bueno. Lot's of current but boy does that sucker run hot! Would love to hear it with some of your sources... Please use with your review muahaha

 

Wow, that's interesting and plain wrong.

 

By the way, I have your Pass INT-30A in right now. It's a fine piece.

[ted_b]

Chris asked me to not hijack this thread, so I started another one about multibit (PCM vs SDM). In it I have a response from Michal Jurewicz (Mytek founder/designer) about Berkeley's news release. He readily admits that there is no way Keith Johnson or Michale Pflaumer wrote that release.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/multibit-dsd-debate-18437/#post276360

[realhifi]

This feels like a push from manufacturers to get some high end chatter on this site.

[stereotaipei]

do you guys know if this new Berkeley DAC will have a word clock input (at 14k, it better have...)

[The Computer Audiophile]

This feels like a push from manufacturers to get some high end chatter on this site.

Huh?

[The Computer Audiophile]

do you guys know if this new Berkeley DAC will have a word clock input (at 14k, it better have...)

No word clock input.

 

I wish more DACs supported word clock input. The number of devices that work with external word clocks (servers and DACs) is extremely low.

[NOMBEDES]

No word clock input.

 

I wish more DACs supported word clock input.

 

 

I wish this gizmo did not cost $14K.

[stereotaipei]

No word clock input.

 

I wish more DACs supported word clock input. The number of devices that work with external word clocks (servers and DACs) is extremely low.

yes, it always surprises me there are so few of these. From my experience, you gain so much in sound quality by having one clock driving the full digital chain that absence of word clock input is a deal breaker for me....

[barrows]

yes, it always surprises me there are so few of these. From my experience, you gain so much in sound quality by having one clock driving the full digital chain that absence of word clock input is a deal breaker for me....

 

I disagree, distributing clocks over cables with connectors is only going to result in additional jitter. The best solution is always going to be an asynchronous interface, with a single, very low phase noise clock, in close vicinity to the DAC. Current low jitter oscillators can achieve sub pS jitter levels, which cannot be matched by distributing clock signals between different boxes. It is far better to have a really good clock at the DAC, and use an asynchronous interface to eliminate source jitter as an issue.

Synching multiple devices to single clock source might make sense in a complex studio environment, but for high fidelity audio playback it is unnecessarily complex and will only add jitter.

[Johnny Moondog]

My audition will be scheduled at the earliest convenience!

[wkhanna]

Synching multiple devices to single clock source might make sense in a complex studio environment, but for high fidelity audio playback it is unnecessarily complex and will only add jitter.

If it adds jitter why is it so common in the studio environment?

For home audio, you are only using it to reference one signal.

[wkhanna]

yes, it always surprises me there are so few of these. From my experience, you gain so much in sound quality by having one clock driving the full digital chain that absence of word clock input is a deal breaker for me....

 

I agree that typically improvements can be gained by use of a high precision word clock.

Not only is it unfortunate that the unit does not provide an input for one, but also, apparently, it does not provide more than one AES/EBU input. This seems silly to me when a the DAC offers digital volume controls with the intent of eliminating the preamp.

[VandyMan]

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?

[ted_b]

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?

 

Additional cabling aside (good point Barrows) a word clock input is nice when you already own a clock like an Antelope Atomic, etc...or when you want to improve the clocking down the road. Yes, theoretically the best bet is tight asynch integration, but the ability to mix and match is always a feature that shouldn't be overlooked. Mytek, Antelope and others have had word clock inputs for quite some time. I loved the fact that my Mytek stack (3 stereo dacs for multichannel) had clock inputs and outputs so I could ensure a good synch among the three DACs for stable multichannel 5.1 DSD playback, for example.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

[VandyMan]

Thanks. Really interesting.