Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS - Impressions and Information

[The Computer Audiophile]

Rather than continue the older, speculative, pre-release thread I started a new thread for impressions and information now that the Alpha DAC Reference Series is shipping.

 

I received mine this morning. It's a special DAC. I've never heard better sound in my system. Period.

 

Much more to come.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey Chris,

 

Thanks for your early impressions.

 

If you were to use this as your primary DAC, how would you handle DSD files? Would you just downsample them?

 

Is there a need or benefit to using this DAC with Berkeley's USB converter?

 

Also, just for clarity, the Berkeley sounds as good as the entire Vivaldi stack or just as good as the Vivaldi DAC alone? I realize you might not want to be that direct in your comparison.

 

Do you have as great job or what?

 

Joel

Hi Joel - Yes, times like these I have the best career in the world. I've listened to more music since receiving the Alpha RS than I have in the last few weeks.

 

"If you were to use this as your primary DAC..." I am and I will be using it as my primary DAC as long as Berkeley Audio Design will let me use the unit. When something sounds this good I won't take it out of my system voluntarily.

 

I have two versions of al my DSD material. 1. The original DSD albums. 2. PCM versions converted to 24 bit / 176.4 kHz offline with JRiver Media Center.

 

Depending on one's source there may be a need for the Alpha USB. So far I'm leaning toward using the Alpha USB as an added layer of isolation to feed the DAC as pristine of signal as possible. When one can remove noise it just makes sense to do so.

 

This is the best sound I've ever heard in my listening room. Period.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I wonder how this compares to the Lampizator L7 One-Box. I know they have different levels of manufacture, so in that sense aren't comparable, but they are comparable from the sense that one could actually buy one or the other .

 

The Alpha RS is 14k according to early estimates, not sure if that is still correct, and the L7 is, let's say 11.5k with options. Would be an interesting comparison.

 

Also, after establishing how the players compare on 24/96 or 24/192 PCM, this would be an interesting place to then compare, for example, the Opus recordings as 'JRiver converted PCM' (per above comment) playing on the Alpha vs playing real native DSD on the Lampizator. Note I have no preconceived notions here, honestly just interested in how this would go.

Hi lightminer - Yes, very interesting idea.

 

P.S. The Alpha DAC RS is $16,000 now. Early buyers got the DAC for $14,000.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris... I'm slightly confused with this statement. I was of the impression that the new Berkeley required a Alpha USB (or alternative USB interface) operating only with SPDIF or AES; am I correct?

 

What is your primary source these days? A CAPS or are you using the Aurender (or something else)?

 

Eloise

I use several sources including the Aurender W20, CAPS, and streamers.

[The Computer Audiophile]

So it is better than the DirectStream?

I've never heard DS in my system.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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!

Some people go for features. Some go for sound quality. Some go for a mix of both. I've heard the Horus and Hugo and neither are close to sounding as good as the Alpha DAC RS.

 

A drag rag racing car may go 300 miles per hour but it will handle terribly around corners. The race to the highest speed usually means a reduction in other items.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Chris,

You mentioned before that BA is also planning to make some improvements to the regular Alpha DAC 2. is it still happening? Any idea whether it is just a new firmware or hardware related? Thanks!

 

Eric

I don't remember mentioning that :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Chris,

for state-of-the-art evaluation it will be interesting to see how the Berkeley RS reproduces hi-res and this undoubtedly will be an important part of your upcoming review. Yet when you review the DAC please also put particular emphasis on reproduction of 16/44 files. Perhaps 98 % or more of all the music or, when it comes to classical, specific interpretations of it is only available on CD, which makes it the most relevant digital medium.

I am a music lover first, and an audiophile second. On my BADA2 (love that DAC!) I listen exclusively to CD where all the music is (in view of that I honestly could not care less about the PCM vs. DSD debate either). I expect the Berkeley RS to set new standards in 16/44 reproduction and that will be the most interesting to me and the one thing relevant for my desire to purchase the unit. From what I have repeatedly heard is that the best DACs anyway sound better on 16/44 than more average DACs on hi-res, so all is relative.

Thanks and I look forward to your review

Al

Hi Al - You've heard correct about the best DACs sounding better at 44.1 than others at higher sample rates. 44.1 playback is the most important due to all the available content but also due to the criticality of the filters used in the DAC. The rubber can meet the road with 44.1 playback. The best filters aren't easy to create. Filtering is something the Berkeley Audio Design team does remarkably well.

[The Computer Audiophile]

16K for the new Berkeley DAC, over three times the price of their previous product. If the rest of the computer industry and the consumer electronics business followed the "audiophile" business model your iPhone would cost $20,000 by now and your laptop would cost six figures. Sure, it may be better than the previous generation but every one of its components has better price performance that the ones available 12 to 18 months ago.

Ah, ok. I guess.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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!

I'm speechless.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

You're in the same boat as 99.99999999999% of the CA community :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

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

Chrille - Do you realize that people spending $16k on a DAC can purchase any professional A/D D/A on the market? The reason they don't purchase such equipment is because it isn't as good. I've heard many of the professional models. They are built to a price that's affordable by the pro industry. An industry that's bleeding money and has no budget for all out assault A/D D/A converters. There isn't a pro component on the market that uses the crystal oscillators in the Alpha DAC RS.

 

Also, why to you believe DSD and DXD are better than something like 24 bit / 192 kHz?

 

 

You may be interested to know the Berkeley team comes from the pro industry. They would love nothing more than to make a reference A to D converter, but they realize the market just isn't there.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

Because cheaper isn't better. If you look at some of the professionals who make money, like Bob Ludwig, you'll see a dCS system that costs much more than $16,000.

 

Why do you think professional gear is better?

[The Computer Audiophile]

In many way, the proliferation of these low volume high margin products is a symptom of an industry that is done for.

How so? Every industry features high volume low margin and low volume high margin. Cars, watches, food, etc...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Simple, bespoke may work for supercars and high end watches, but for consumer electronics the only thing it buys you is depreciation. I can show you auction results for watches and supercars that prove their long term worth, show me that for a piece of high end audio.

 

Every industry has bespoke. How is bespoke in audio an indication if decline. It's a symbol of health in food.

[The Computer Audiophile]

With 360 Whole Food stores and even Walmart selling organic and so many local farmers markets, its obvious the "bespoke" food movement is pushing larger volumes with lower margins. The proliferation of fine dining in every city proves "bespoke" restaurants are managing margins to increase their market.

 

Ah OK.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Consider this. It would take 5 months of ComputerAudiophile gross revenue to buy the new Berkeley DAC. The entire business model is broken, if the audiophile vendors cared about expanding their market, CA revenue would be an order of magnitude higher.

 

 

computeraudiophile.com - Statistics, Traffic, SEO Information | website-statistics.info

Now I see why your opinions are so skewed compared to my own. I use facts to form mine. You use 100% incorrect conjecture based on zero facts. That site has everything incorrect and incorrect by quite a bit.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Web site statistics aren't state secrets, what's a more accurate lookup site?

There are no accurate lookup sites. Each site owner, if they are smart, runs a snippet of code behind the scenes that reports accurate stats. These stats are only available to the site owner. Without access to this code the lookup sites are just making guesses about traffic.

 

When it comes to monetization those sites take their guesses about traffic and then guess what the site could make based on a product like adsense. It's not possible for those sites to know how much each site owner charges for advertising when ads are sold directly (not through a service like adsense).

 

That said, kumakuma is 100% correct.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris,

 

Any chance that you will start including xxx-rated images of the components under review ? Many webzines do it and for many, this is often as interesting as the review itself.

 

I would love to see how the RS is build like inside.

Sure thing Adam. It's beautiful inside.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Long time CA supporter Tim Marutani has posted a guide to converting DSD to PCM on his website.

 

Those attending the California Audio Show will have an opportunity to hear the Alpha DAC RS playing material converted from DSD to PCM.

 

Web link -> Guides

[The Computer Audiophile]

Who is a better painter Rembrandt or Van Gogh?

 

Can you tell by reading opinions about each artists and his paintings?

 

Can you tell by viewing pictures of the paintings online?

 

Oh wait, there is no such thing as a "better" painter. Their work is subjective art.

 

 

This applies to Audio as well. All engineers start with the same rules. Creating a final product is an art that produces different results. A "better" or "best" DAC can only be decided upon by each one of us. As it stands now the Alpha DAC RS is the best DAC I've ever heard in my system.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Chris,

 

Waiting for your review of Berkeley Audio Design's Alpha RS DAC. Can you also look into reviewing the Trinity DAC and compare it to this Alpha RS and the Vivaldi and the MSB Diamond. Trinity's link is here: DAC

 

Some talk can be found here about it with some comments from the designer as well: Trinity DAC

 

Hopefully you can acquire a test unit ASAP. Thank you.

Hi Stereo - I will look into this.

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm actually a vegetarian :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

Since the DAC is component-wise pretty much regular off-the-shelf gear, if the digital filters are the ones that make it sound good, cheaper option is to run digital filters in computer and use a DAC where you can bypass the built-in filters. Like TEAC UD-501 or iFi iDSD Micro.

 

I personally prefer to also bypass the built-in delta-sigma modulators, which the RS doesn't seem to be doing...

 

 

P.S. The iDSD Micro runs internal filters to 352.8/384 rate, while with software you can do 705.6/768 rate.

How does "proprietary parts that didn't previously exist" equal "off the shelf" to you?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Enough talk about the environment. It's very important but not the topic of this thread.