Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS - Impressions and Information

[Kelly]

I'm speechless.

 

Chris, you clearly can't even hear as well as my dog. I personally have bat ears and could use some beryllium tweeters that go to 50khz. You clearly aren't qualified to review audio equipment. Geeze you'd better find a new line of work soon ...

[Audio_ELF]

Geeze you'd better find a new line of work soon ...

Work? Work? You call what Chris does work?

 

Swanning around the world, listening to the best that HiFi can offer.

 

He can complain after a day down't pits!!

 

All in good fun

Eloise :-)

[Al M.]

I'm speechless.

 

Me too. Among other things, who would have ever thought that we humans can hear above 20 kHz?

[manisandher]

He can complain after a day down't pits!!

 

Not sure anyone outside the UK would understand this.

 

Is it even worth my stating what so many others have already? That the mastering is waaaaaay more important than the final format. And the actual music itself, whether it stirs your soul or not, waaaaay more important still.

 

Mani.

[Al M.]

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

[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 :~)

[joelha]

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,

 

You're missing out on a brilliant career as a reviewer.

Think of it. You could churn out dozens of reviews upon only learning of the arrival of a new piece of equipment, without ever having heard the device.

You'd put every publication and on-line source, including this one, out of business.

How do you think the Berkeley Reference DAC compares with the DCS Vivaldi DAC? Given that I'm guessing you haven't heard either of them, you're imminently qualified, at least by your own standards, to weigh in.

Joel

[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!

[4est]

OK then, but why did you quote me. I agreed with Eloise in that I would give up hi res if it meant better RB performance. I am in no position to compare this unit with a Horus or what have you. I attempted to make it clear that my interests lie in redbook, and I am not interested in a digital source that is this expensive FWIW. The original Berkeley was and is the most expensive DAC I will ever own.

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!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Al M.]

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,

 

Cool.

 

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 can't comment on your other DACs, but I have had the Hegel HD 25 at home. While it is a nice DAC, it does not come close to revealing the amazing resolution that I hear from 16/44 on my Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 (which costs "just" 5 grand, and not the 16 of the new Reference model).

 

My one and only reference is LIVE acoustic music.

 

So is mine, ultimately.

 

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.

 

Keeping on calling CD low-res does not make it so.

[kana813]

Keeping on calling CD low-res does not make it so.

 

Have you listened to any hi res recordings on your Berkeley Alpha DAC 2?

[Jud]

 

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.

 

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

 

What high frequencies are you missing at 16/44.1?

 

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

[Al M.]

Have you listened to any hi res recordings on your Berkeley Alpha DAC 2?

 

No, but when CD playback on the Berkeley DAC favorably compares in resolution to high-quality vinyl playback, which to my ears it does, then it is high-resolution in my view.

[Jud]

He can complain after a day down't pits!!

 

Not sure anyone outside the UK would understand this.

 

Mani.

 

Love learning new colloquialisms. We in the US might say after a lunch break, "Back to the salt mines."

[Audio_ELF]

Love learning new colloquialisms. We in the US might say after a lunch break, "Back to the salt mines."

And for those who prefer visual references...

[video=youtube_share;Xe1a1wHxTyo]

[ted_b]

Sorry to go off topic...but that has always been a favorite Python skit in the Brady household. Our now-adult sons grew up knowing expressions like "we used to live in a lake!!" "Luxury!"

 

I am very interested to hear Chris's details on how this Reference DAC does timing and tonality on good ole' redbook material. Despite what some others have said, there is a boatload of potential in 16/44.1k that some current modern designs are starting to mine. And it ain't just frequency response. Hirez PCM and DSD can be awesome, but to release the potential of a majority of our libraries (i.e redbook) is a real value add. The major challenge, assuming one can afford the price points to begin with, is to guess when the development leapfrogging slows down enough to invest wisely and then get out before its life cycle is over. And for those of us not lucky enough to partake financially, the raising of the water level floats all boats....so hurray to the bleeding edge developments. It helps the industry in most cases.

[kana813]

No, but when CD playback on the Berkeley DAC favorably compares in resolution to high-quality vinyl playback, which to my ears it does, then it is high-resolution in my view.

 

I've had a BADA Series II in my system and IMO, Redbook CD playback doesn't sound as good as vinyl or hi rez PCM.

 

If you've never heard any hi rez PCM, get this sampler disc:

 

Reference Recordings - HRx Details

[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.

[Distinctive]

They have just re-united again .

Eric Idle's opening line:

"Who'd have thought 40 years ago we'd be sitting here doing Monty Python?"

[Al M.]

I've had a BADA Series II in my system and IMO, Redbook CD playback doesn't sound as good as vinyl or hi rez PCM.

 

If you've never heard any hi rez PCM, get this sampler disc:

 

Reference Recordings - HRx Details

 

Thanks for the suggestion regarding the sampler disc. Obviously, I haven't claimed that CD on the BADA Series II sounds as good as hi rez PCM, only that I do think that CD replay on it through my system is of high resolution. As for the actual performance of the DAC in a system, this of course depends on several factors, one of them being good power conditioning. I found the unit to deliver substantially lower resolution straight out of the wall.

[junker]

Actually I think of Pacific Microsonics being one of the most notable professional manufacturers. Their A-D converters are still considered some of the best. Berkeley was formed by the same crew after Microsoft acquired Pacific Microsonics. Didn't they invent oversampling digital filters and HDCD??

 

 

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?