Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS - Impressions and Information

[accwai]

Would be interested to see it stack up against a pure ladder DAC like the MSB Analog.

 

There is a good chance that I would be able to hear the Alpha Reference and a totaldac later this year on two very similar systems. Or perhaps even on the same system (but not at the same time unfortunately). Looking forward to that.

[Kelly]

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.

 

Awesome post. It's just so, so true.

[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.

[Al M.]

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

[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.

[Al M.]

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.

 

Thanks, Chris, your post sounds like music to my ears…

Yes, I always thought that implementation is the most critical for 16/44.1. Judging from the progress of digital it appears to me that the theory of 16/44.1 (and the application of the Nyquist theorem to digital) may have been correct after all, and now some thirty years later we get a glimpse of its true potential. It's just that there is no margin for error since the format is defined so tightly, whereas with hi-res there is more room to play. I would not be surprised if over time on the best DACs the differences between 16/44.1 and high-res will become ever smaller.

Al

[reverendo]

Thanks, Chris, your post sounds like music to my ears…

Yes, I always thought that implementation is the most critical for 16/44.1. Judging from the progress of digital it appears to me that the theory of 16/44.1 (and the application of the Nyquist theorem to digital) may have been correct after all, and now some thirty years later we get a glimpse of its true potential. It's just that there is no margin for error since the format is defined so tightly, whereas with hi-res there is more room to play. I would not be surprised if over time on the best DACs the differences between 16/44.1 and high-res will become ever smaller.

Al

sorry for the off-topic, but I really do believe that hi-res is actually better than 16/44.1 and not by a small margin. I have had the chance to ask for 24/88.2 from the masters of an album that I was helping produce from Chesky and compared it to the CD itself. It was not subtle.

I do agree, though, that a DAC really has to shine on 16/44.1 since most music is still there and fake upsampling and calling it hi-res just isn't the same as real hi-res

just my 2 cents

[wisnon]

Duplicate post.

[wisnon]

Would be interested to see it stack up against a pure ladder DAC like the MSB Analog.

 

At that price you should be looking for a comparo to a higher model like the Platinum.

[wdw]

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

 

 

+1

 

Warren

[Audio_ELF]

sorry for the off-topic, but I really do believe that hi-res is actually better than 16/44.1 and not by a small margin.

I hope I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth but I don't think anyone (in this thread) was arguing agains High res being better than CD (though they may argue how large the margin is but that's not the question here).

 

What was being said (IMO) is that well done CD replay can be superior to mediocre High Res (and this applies at many levels) and that for many people CD level replay is more important as the music they want to listen to is only available to them in this format. Certainly for me I would give up all the high res music I have if it meant better CD level replay.

 

Eloise

[4est]

Hear, hear!

Certainly for me I would give up all the high res music I have if it meant better CD level replay.

 

Eloise

[accwai]

[...] What was being said (IMO) is that well done CD replay can be superior to mediocre High Res (and this applies at many levels) and that for many people CD level replay is more important as the music they want to listen to is only available to them in this format. Certainly for me I would give up all the high res music I have if it meant better CD level replay.

 

But CD replay on the currently Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 has been superior to many lesser DACs playing hi-res for a long time now. You probably don't need to wait for the Alpha Reference for that.

[RealAudio]

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.

[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.

[Kelly]

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.

 

I don't think the new berkeley dac is supposed to replace the alpha 2 is it? I took it to be their attempt to build a really maxed out dac with no expense spared. You can still buy a Nissan 370Z for $30k, or you can buy a GT-R for $100k.

[Audio_ELF]

+1

 

Though I was thinking you can but a Audi A5 or an R8 :-)

I don't think the new berkeley dac is supposed to replace the alpha 2 is it? I took it to be their attempt to build a really maxed out dac with no expense spared. You can still buy a Nissan 370Z for $30k, or you can buy a GT-R for $100k.

[jonmarsh]

There is a good chance that I would be able to hear the Alpha Reference and a totaldac later this year on two very similar systems. Or perhaps even on the same system (but not at the same time unfortunately). Looking forward to that.

 

Would be very interested in hearing about that, as I have a TotalDAC-D1 Dual used with Brainstorm DCD8 and rubidium oscillator for re-clocking, and have been very happy with that setup- I also have a BADA in my bedroom, with a Mutec MC-3 Plus with rubidium oscillator, which rather improves the top end realism of the BADA.

[agisthos]

Would be very interested in hearing about that, as I have a TotalDAC-D1 Dual used with Brainstorm DCD8 and rubidium oscillator for re-clocking, and have been very happy with that setup- I also have a BADA in my bedroom, with a Mutec MC-3 Plus with rubidium oscillator, which rather improves the top end realism of the BADA.

 

Which makes you wish these DAC manufacturers used good clocks to begin with, preferably in the same enclosure and located very close on the DAC chips and FPGA's they are feeding.

[agisthos]

So what do we know about the internal workings of the Berkeley Audio Ref DAC? Is it a ladder DAC design? Open the case and post some pics !!

 

I have to concur with the many comments on this thread about having a DAC that kills it for 16/44, since that it where all the good music lives.

[pga]

I just got my Alpha RS today. Agree with Chris, best sound I've had in my home. More musical and still more transparent and detailed than the BADA Series 2. Bass is outstanding. No harshness at all in the upper end. Totally natural sound, even with the TADs which can easily sound harsh with the beryllium drivers. Amazing product. Next upgrade will be the server, but I find the Mac Pro sounding very good as perhaps this DAC is less immune to any jitter or noise that may get through the Berkeley USB.

[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!

[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.

[Paul R]

I'm speechless.

 

(Grin) But hopefully not for long. $16k is above the price point I am willing to pay for a DAC, but I can still admire one. Wish I could hear one of the new Berkeley's.

 

I am am a little amazed at the new price-race and price-wars happening on DACs these days myself. The prices involve certainly engender enthusiastic reactions, both high and low. Might be good fodder for a future article.

 

Paul

[4est]

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.

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!