Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS - Impressions and Information

[chrille]

Good for you if you like it .

But permit me to strongly doubt that a 16000 dollar DAC that can only play pcm files up to 24/192 can outperform say a Horus A/D D/A which sells for less and is actually used to make both DXD and DSD 128 and DSD 256 native recordings.

It would not surprise me if the amazing little HUGO from Chord sounds better and closer to the master and live studio sound playing a native DXD or DSD 128 file than the Berkeley playing the same files downconverted to 24/192!

Hugo sells for roughly 2000 dollars .And you can get Professional mch A DAD AX 24 or Horus both for less than the price of a stereo only limited to 24/192 consumer Berkeley DAC. I just fail to see any good reason to buy one in the context of what that kind of money can actually buy!

[chrille]

chrille,

You certainly have the right to be amazed or doubtul, but I'm equally surprised that someone who (presumably) has never heard the device can have such strong feelings about how it will perform.

Joel

Don't get me wrong I am sure it is an absolutely top quality DAC anything else would imply a total rip off !

But if what Chris says is true in general terms it would imply that the Berkeley RS at 24/192 is better and more resolving than the Horus or Hugo playing native DXD and DSD files.

You are aware aren't you? that the Horus is probably one of the best Pro A/D D/A available on the market today and is used by companies recording acoustic music at the highest possible audio quality DXD or DSD 256 .It also does both multichannel and all digital formats up to DXD and DSD 256. And it is also cheaper than the Berkeley. I would personally MUCH RATHER buy a unit that can do a lot more and is used by the Pros in the busines of recordings acoustic music as realistically as possible

If suspect that what Chris says holds true for him in his room and with the music he likes. But not necessarily with large scale acoustic classical music recorded at the highest resolutions available for digital recording.

[chrille]

Hear, hear!

 

I wonder when if ever, it is going to dawn upon some "computer audiophiles" here that no matter how many tricks and how much advanced filtering or interpolation one applies to it, 16/44.1 pcm is a LOW RES format and will remain so.

All that can be done to it is a bit of amelioration softening of the hard edges fillling in a few of all the the missing gaps by clever filtering and interpolation and so on.

But you can NEVER reconstituate re- capture the high frequency information that has simply been filtered out,AND NEVER BEEN recorded by the limitations of the format itself. 22.5khz and brickwall that's it. "You can't get more than a pint out of a pint bottle!"

It is really as simple as that. The fact that a lot of the synthetically recorded pop rock genre on rbcd that many here seem to listen to and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to hear improvements on is another matter, and has little to do with what a present day hi res capabable DAC can and should be able to do.

IMO anybody who spends 16000 dolllars on this or any other DAC in the same price range to hear their ripped rbcd or 16/44.1 downloads are fooling themselves.

But then again those misguided easily fooled " Audiophiles" are exactly what the audiophile industry has been praying on for many years. And surprisingly still manages to do , now when standards of digital reproduction has risen to real pro quality standards even for the masses , at MUCH lower prices than this 16000 dollars Berkeley DAC!

[chrille]

Who is fooling whom? You seem to be under the assumption that this unit will not sound good on other material. I have over 4000 RBCDs. At $10 a pop, that is 40K invested in RB, and I look for means to get the most out of that. I have little interest in hi res because it is hi res. It is the music I am after. Most of that is not available in vinyl or hi res.

 

No not at all,I thought I had made myself very clear in one of my first posts regarding this DAC. I have every reason in the world to assume that it is indeed of Reference Sound Quality on well recorded material up to 24/192 pcm.

Nor do I doubt that it could very well beat some maybe many lesser DACs playing higher resolutions than 24/192.

But I doubt, strongly doubt that it can better a PRO DXD or DSD A/D D/A playing natively recorded acoustic music.

My latest post was a reaction to all those who live under the illusion that there is more to be squeezed out of low rez 16/44.1 than has already been done by many DACs before this OVERPRICED consumer product came on board and became the new priced object for those easily skimmed of their money. I repeat you can't get more than a pint out of a pint bottle!

[chrille]

Erm, 95 % of my listening is to classical and classical avant-garde (most admired composers: Bach, Beethoven, Stockhausen, while I love and listen to many more). So much for your dismissive theory about people who are actually satisfied with 16/44 where all the music lives (are you an audiophile first and a music lover second?). Not that I don't love great rock and pop, too.

 

 

 

I can confidently tell you that my Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 sounds vastly better on 16/44 than lesser converters (I did direct comparisons in my system), and that on this level, provided the rest of your system is up to the job, you can hear that CD is a high-resolution format indeed. And I expect the new Berkeley RS to better the 16/44 performance of my DAC substantially.

 

Thanks for your response AIM,

I think I am very much in the same boat as you seem to be music taste wise. I listen more than 90 % to classical art music both old and contemporary, but must admit that I never really warmed to Stockhausen's music.I don't like electronic music, nor electronically amplified instruments.

When I don't listen to classical music music I play world music and even have a sweet spot for the wonderfully crazy stuff Bollywood produces.

I am not an audiophile first, on the contrary I became interested in audio and its general lack of reproducing music as I keep hearing it live at concerts as often as I get a chance to.

But unlike a lot of posters here who seem to compare only the SQ as they hear it of product a against product b, I sometimes get a chance to actually compare live music to recorded not only via my own quite decent home stereo system ML Electrostatic speakers and MF KW 550 amplfication,Benchmark HGC DAC 2 and Hegel HD 25 and for travel purpose the amazing little HUGO and Sennheiser's reference quality headphones.But I also sometimes get to hear to how acoustic music sounds in the studio at actual recording sessions and on some of the very best professional systems available.

I have not yet heard this new Berkeley DAC but when I get to hear it with material where I was present at the actual recording sessions and can compare to both live and pro studio equipment, I will comment on its SQ but not before. My one and only reference is LIVE acoustic music. At present I am just a bit baffled that some here seem to be willing to pay 16000 dollars for a counsumer DAC when they can get the stuff Pros use cheaper than this. But I am aware of the fact that a different logic applies in Audiophile high end computer audio world than in the professional .

 

 

I can confidently tell you that my Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 sounds vastly better on 16/44 than lesser converters (I did direct comparisons in my system), and that on this level, provided the rest of your system is up to the job, you can hear that CD is a high-resolution format indeed. And I expect the new Berkeley RS to better the 16/44 performance of my DAC substantially.

 

I am sure it does but they are still only 16 bit and if you listen to really well recorded acoustic music I hope you too will hear a difference between low res and hi res. I do both via my three DACs and between the rbcd layer and the SACD layer on most SACDs too. Everything else being equal and really good miking is what it takes for hi res to shine against 16/44.1imho.

Unlike most posters here obviously I rarely listen to music on 16/44.1

It does'nt hurt as much as it used to but it still sucks compared to both a lot of analogue and even more the best of hi res PCM or DSD.

And luckily for me not all but most of what I like to listen to is either available on good old LP in decent to very good SQ or even better from both hi res downloads or other digital hi res formats.

Music really matters to me and I don't want it compromised when I don't have to.

[chrille]

And for those who prefer visual references...

[video=youtube_share;Xe1a1wHxTyo]

 

Thanks a lot for this !

Absolutely wonderful !

They have just re-united again .

[chrille]

You do understand DXD is just 24/352.8 or 384 PCM, right?

 

 

 

Yes i do but it is still the closest I have personally heard pcm get to the live sound of acoustic music both at recording sessions and via different systems capable of playing DXD masterfiles.

According to Rob Watts the guy behind the Hugo to completely capture all the timing information our ears/ brains are capable of resolving we might need to go from 24 to 32 bits with pcm.

 

What high frequencies are you missing at 16/44.1?

 

Like most others here I can't actually hear anything above 16-17khz any longer. And I have never claimed anythign else. I am no spring chicken.

But to get back to the important question of timing our ears can obviously resolve down to 4 microseconds rbcd comes in at 22 !

 

 

Finally - sort of ironic you have the Benchmark, given John Siau's attitude regarding DSD.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I do but it is still the closest I have personally heard pcm get to the live sound of acoustic music both at recording sessions and via different systems capable of playing DXD masterfiles.

According to Rob Watts the guy behind the Hugo to completely capture all the timing information our ears/ brains are capable of resolving we might need to go from 24 to 32 bits with pcm.

 

What high frequencies are you missing at 16/44.1?

 

Like most others here I can't actually hear anything above 16-17khz any longer. And I have never claimed anything else. I am no spring chicken.

But to get back to the important question of timing our ears can obviously resolve down to 4 microseconds rbcd comes in at 22 !

 

 

Finally - sort of ironic you have the Benchmark, given John Siau's attitude regarding DSD.[/QUThe DAC 2 does an excellent job with both pcm and DSD 64 and sounds very good with 24/192 pcm.

Amazing little Hugo makes even 16/44.1 quite listenable with a lot of interpolation, ie filling in all the missing gaps within the given range.

But it still can't squeeze more than a "pint out of a pint bottle".

All it can do and does very well indeed is to make it a bit more palatable.

 

But the output is still not really comparable to 24 bit hi res 24/88.2 and up to DXD or DSD 64 128 or 256.

To really hear how much better hi res is than plain 16/44.1 it helps to be able to actually compare live acoustic music to the masterfiles at different resolutions.

Since most people here can't do that there are luckily now two sites where some reasonably fair comparisons between the masterfile and different downsamplings can be downloaded for free 2 L has some excellent samples online and so does native dsd.com.

I have been fortunate to hear quite a few first live and then comparing masterfiles to downsampled.

Hearing is believing in my case.

But not even the highest quality and most expensive systems I have heard can really rival live .

We are not there yet as I hear it. But both DSD well done and pcm from 24/88.2 and up can get uncannily close sometimes.

[chrille]

Any chance one of you fellas buying and selling dCS DAC stacks can help me fund my kids' college tuitions?

 

No offense meant, I just forget what different spheres some of us are in.

 

Once again judging by the music and recordings some use in their comparisons I once again come to the conclusion .Some people have too much money and no valid references.