Article: Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series Review

[agisthos]

Certainly an enthusiastic review, I guess when you say "most remarkable sounding product I've ever reviewed" you mean you like it. The review does raise some questions.

 

First "There's no chip a manufacture can purchase and implement that comes close to replicating 'Berkeley's' custom filtering technology". Filters are software based on well established math that goes back many decades. Lets assume their software is really that unique. A chip manufacture can afford fleets of PhDs to design filters. The Berkeley guys don't operate in a vacuum. They took the same courses in school as everyone else, they read the same journals, they talk to the same component vendors and they attend the same conferences. If what they did is that special, its a good bet it will be reverse engineered. If they patent it, the "secret" is out, patents require disclosure.

 

 

"A DAC that can make standard resolution (16/44.1) material sound as good as high resolution is a true game changer" I guess this should finally answer the "can people tell the difference between standard cd and hi rez", and the answer is they can't.

 

"the cost of the parts ended up being 40x greater than parts used in the Alpha DAC Series 2 or the Alpha USB" You can't be saying their COG is 40x their previous product, that would mean to keep the same hardware gross margins their new dac would have to sell for $200,000. Did they tell you which parts cost 40x?

 

-1. Just pedantic nitpicking trying to find something, anything, to have a knock against Chris' review. The questions you raise can be raised against any product that raises the bar in any industry. Why state the obvious ?

 

All I was doing was just critiquing something I found over the top regarding this review. I am not the first and surely won't be the last to raise the issue of reviewers that make these kind of comments mitigating, at least in some readers minds (in this case mine), the veracity of the review in question.

 

I will repeat myself, just pedantic nitpicking trying to find something, anything, to have a knock against Chris' review. Think about the absurdity of this, a reviewer is not allowed to enthusiastically say a product is the best he has ever heard. Its not like Chris has form on this and does it all the time. This is the most positive review he has ever given and he obviously feels passionate about this product.

[pawel8]

I just wonder how would Alpha Reference sound with Chris's previous amplifiers(Spectral).

As far as I know Pass labs amps are much better as are non MIT cables.

There were some opinions that Alpha Dac 2 was "filtered to death"-is RS in the same category?

For red book and CDs I will choose audio research CD 9.

[MRubey]

Lukaz often says stuff like:

"I strongly believe that 44.1 and 16 bits is all we need. There are some EXTREMELY good recordings on 44/16 that prove by their high quality that the medium is not the limiting factor - it is the recording engineering , love, passion and attention to detail that makes good recordings. Most of the hi-rez stuff is utterly boring and meaningless. Having said that, most valuable artists recorded many years ago and only on analog or 44/16 so whats the point of discussing benefits of Hi-Rez files if Louis, Ella, Miles and Zappa are dead ?"

 

I disagree that "most of the high rez stuff is boring and meaningless" but what I find endlessly fascinating is that we are just beginning to mine the possibilities of the format most of us have become so invested in since the mid 1980s. Fremer says a similar thing about vintage vinyl.

"They had no idea how great the recordings that they were making were and it is only with modern analog equipment that we are discovering that."

That DACs are being made that render my properly done CDs truly satisfying and my crappy ones better is big....huge....to me.

If I have to create a special savings account and wait a year or two for an Alpha DAC Ref or a Lampi 7 that is a worthwhile thing to do. In the mean time the technology will keep pushing the envelope and those advances will trickle down into more affordable gear.

 

I spend a small amount of time every week looking into what new high resolution downloads have been added to the catalogs at Acoustic Sounds and HD Tracks. They are growing very quickly but are still somewhat limited. Also $25-30 a pop isn't cheap.

I buy used CDs all the time for a few bucks each.

 

BTW - I appreciate Chris's enthusiasm. I've read enough on this site to know it's not habitual pandering.

[mav52]

I think the review Chris did was ok afer all I look at a review, as 50% fact and 50% entertainment. This review which is based solely on Chris's opinion, using his equipment in his room. If Chris would have noted, the dac sounds pretty good, people would question what "good" meant. It's a endless cycle trying to please all that read reviews.

 

So Chris hasn't heard all the other dacs that reside in this world, big deal. He wrote the review. If someone wants to write their review on this dac, so be it, get the dac and do it.. And them let the residents of this site question that reviewer.

 

Chris, keep the reviews coming

[Geoffrey Armstrong]

Thanks for the review Chris. I also read Robert Harley’s equally glowing report in TAS. In Robert’s review he mentioned that a registered license for J River Media Center is included with the DAC. This is interesting particularly because it’s been my experience that the software player has a huge impact on the final sound quality.

 

I have also experienced what to my ears seemed like miraculous transformation of Redbook quality sound using HQPlayer in combination with various DSD capable DAC’s using HQP’s PCM to DSD conversion capability, and specifically the built in poly-sinc filter. This filter is very demanding of resources; but on a system which enables it to be used, it produces an uncannily life-like and natural result from plain old rebook CD.

 

I am skeptical as to whether the Alpha RS can truly exceed the best I’ve heard from a combination of HQP and a DSD capable DAC. The DSD DACs in question were all far less expensive than the Alpha reference; but if the Alpha reference can surpass the results I’m currently achieving I will be forced to take it very seriously.

 

J River is a friendlier and much more feature rich program than HQP. I love J River for many reasons and wouldn’t be without it. If J River can sound that good through the Alpha Reference that’s clearly an advantage to Berkeley Designs.

 

On the other hand a purchaser of the Alpha Reference as their sole DAC would have to sacrifice the possibility of PCM 352.8/384 KHZ files as well as DSD up to DSD256 in their native states. Files at these higher resolutions are, of course becoming increasingly available.

 

Robert Harley actually used Pure Music on the Mac for his computer audio auditioning. Of course there is a version of J River for Mac, though the Windows versions remains far more mature with more features.

 

J River’s audio engine, though good does not sound nearly as good to my ears as HQP converting to DSD or foo_asio also converting to DSD when used to replace J River’s audio engine, from within J River.

 

The software player and dac do often seem to work as a system. So I’m wondering if, when it comes to Computer Audio, the Alpha Reference has somehow been optimised around the sound of J River.

 

It would be interesting if you, or someone else with the Alpha DAC could try it using HQPlayer using the poly-sinc filter up-sampling PCM to the Max of 192khz and report on how this compares to J River.

 

Perhaps the Alpha reference is simply performing a lot of sophisticated filtering itself which would negate any advantages HQP’s filters have to offer; but perhaps not. Anyway, the comparison would be very interesting.

Geoff

[stevebythebay]

Berkeley has typically updated firmware through WAV files just like dCS. Playing them through the DAC updates the firmware.

 

I never heard about this. Is it documented anywhere? Checked with my dealer and they didn't know about this. What's the process? Do you simply find a disk with some wav files and rip to computer and playback?

[The Computer Audiophile]

I never heard about this. Is it documented anywhere? Checked with my dealer and they didn't know about this. What's the process? Do you simply find a disk with some wav files and rip to computer and playback?

It's an undocumented feature only used in special circumstances.

[stevebythebay]

Thanks for the review Chris. I also read Robert Harley’s equally glowing report in TAS. In Robert’s review he mentioned that a registered license for J River Media Center is included with the DAC. This is interesting particularly because it’s been my experience that the software player has a huge impact on the final sound quality.

 

My understanding, when I last spoke with Michael Ritter, was that rather than offer their own software for converting source material to PCM that they found that the JRiver software was optimally suited to do this task. I don't believe that they specify a particular software player for the DAC, though Pure is noted for the Alpha USB for Mac users.

 

I have also experienced what to my ears seemed like miraculous transformation of Redbook quality sound using HQPlayer in combination with various DSD capable DAC’s using HQP’s PCM to DSD conversion capability, and specifically the built in poly-sinc filter. This filter is very demanding of resources; but on a system which enables it to be used, it produces an uncannily life-like and natural result from plain old rebook CD.

 

I am skeptical as to whether the Alpha RS can truly exceed the best I’ve heard from a combination of HQP and a DSD capable DAC. The DSD DACs in question were all far less expensive than the Alpha reference; but if the Alpha reference can surpass the results I’m currently achieving I will be forced to take it very seriously.

 

J River is a friendlier and much more feature rich program than HQP. I love J River for many reasons and wouldn’t be without it. If J River can sound that good through the Alpha Reference that’s clearly an advantage to Berkeley Designs.

 

On the other hand a purchaser of the Alpha Reference as their sole DAC would have to sacrifice the possibility of PCM 352.8/384 KHZ files as well as DSD up to DSD256 in their native states. Files at these higher resolutions are, of course becoming increasingly available.

 

Robert Harley actually used Pure Music on the Mac for his computer audio auditioning. Of course there is a version of J River for Mac, though the Windows versions remains far more mature with more features.

 

J River’s audio engine, though good does not sound nearly as good to my ears as HQP converting to DSD or foo_asio also converting to DSD when used to replace J River’s audio engine, from within J River.

 

The software player and dac do often seem to work as a system. So I’m wondering if, when it comes to Computer Audio, the Alpha Reference has somehow been optimised around the sound of J River.

 

It would be interesting if you, or someone else with the Alpha DAC could try it using HQPlayer using the poly-sinc filter up-sampling PCM to the Max of 192khz and report on how this compares to J River.

 

Perhaps the Alpha reference is simply performing a lot of sophisticated filtering itself which would negate any advantages HQP’s filters have to offer; but perhaps not. Anyway, the comparison would be very interesting.

Geoff

 

I've move from JRiver Win to Mac and lately the best is the current iteration of Amarra, by a mile or more.

[wdw]

It's an undocumented feature only used in special circumstances.

 

Hello Chris,

This comment catch me by surprise as well...there is an "RJ-45?" port labelled BADA at the back of my Series 1 which I understood to be the mechanism for software enhancements but none have ever been offered, as far as I am aware. Have there been WAV file software updates?

Regards

[The Computer Audiophile]

Have there been WAV file software updates?

Regards

Only for special circumstances. The initial firmware, I believe version 0.70, is still what's put on the Alpha DAC Series 2 units leaving the factory today.

[agisthos]

Chris maybe you can elaborate more on why Berkeley Audio Design can only manufacture 2 of these DAC's a day. In the interview in TAS they mention how it's not just getting boards made and putting them in the chassis, but some sort of laborious adjustment process that goes on. They were not talking about hand matching components (which is a 'before the PCB' issue), but adjustments to an already running product.

 

No doubt this could be smoke and mirrors or marketing talk, but if true it is intriguing to know what they are actually doing.

[stevebythebay]

I really didn't try it with the Aries more than for a couple minutes testing bit perfect output of the Aries.

 

From your review of the Aries it seems you've had than more a cursory experience in testing with the Reference.

 

"...I've also had the Aries connected via AES/EBU to the new Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS with great results..." 8/31/2014

 

Guess you'll have more to say in future about this "Wireless streaming bridge" as they describe it. Looking forward to the results for various means of sending the songs to the Aries and getting the outbound bits to your DACS. And, of course, how the Aries compares sonically to alternative players, like MacBooks.

[RealAudio]

Chris maybe you can elaborate more on why Berkeley Audio Design can only manufacture 2 of these DAC's a day. In the interview in TAS they mention how it's not just getting boards made and putting them in the chassis, but some sort of laborious adjustment process that goes on. They were not talking about hand matching components (which is a 'before the PCB' issue), but adjustments to an already running product.

 

No doubt this could be smoke and mirrors or marketing talk, but if true it is intriguing to know what they are actually doing.

 

2 a day, that's 500 a year, really. Its a good bet that the dealer price is in the 10k range, cost of good maybe 1 or 2 k, how can you pay for a couple of engineers, marketing expenses, admin overhead, rent in the bay area for that sort of pittance?

[Simone Leroisoleil]

I'd like to thank you, Chris, for your exhaustive and thrilling review of Berkeley RS Reference DAC.Why not to use superlatives when you meet something which is exceptional? When I watch to a movie starring Grace Kelly, why shouldn't I say that, in my opinion, she has been, and still now is, the most beautiful actress on the screen? "In my opinion" is the magical formula which underlines the subjectivity of every aesthetical judgment (and not only aestethical, but also ethical very often..).

Chris I trust you and your review for two major matters: 1) Your review of Berkeley Alpha USB had changed my life of Audiophile transforming me in a "Computer Audiophile" .

2) I subscribe every superlative you have used in your last review and I can do that properly...because since one week I am a lucky owner of the Berkeley Reference DAC!

Considering that I am more a music lover, in particular Classical Music, than an Audiophile, I usually evaluate the music reproduction comparing the reproduced sound to the "natural sound" I hear every week at live concerts, in my town (I'm lucky enough to live in Florence -Italy, where is an important orchestra, Maggio Musicale Fiorentino, lead by one of the most important conductors all over the world, Zubin Mehta), as well around all over Europe (last week for instance I was in Paris at La Salle Pleyel and at Theatre des Champs Elyseè, for two different recitals of two most famous living iRussian violinists, Vangerov and Repin).

I'm happy to say that, for the very first time, I'm completely satisfied of the naturality and the "sound like living event" of a digital recording: Berkeley Reference DAC does really this "kind of magic", and it does it with the red book format files!

I'd like to write more about my listening experience, in particular with classical music, but I'm not sure that is the right place to do it.

[joelha]

If this has already been covered I apologize for not having found it before now, but when used purely as a DAC, at what numerical setting should the Alpha Reference DAC's output be set?

It's always been conventional wisdom that a DAC should be set at full output. But I see in Robert Harley's review that he had set it at 59 (60 being full output).

Does anyone know what Berkeley recommends?

Joel

[accwai]

If this has already been covered I apologize for not having found it before now, but when used purely as a DAC, at what numerical setting should the Alpha Reference DAC's output be set?

It's always been conventional wisdom that a DAC should be set at full output. But I see in Robert Harley's review that he had set it at 59 (60 being full output).

Does anyone know what Berkeley recommends?

Joel

 

Does the manual say anything about this? For Alpha DAC 2, the paper manual says 55 and the latest PDF copy from the Berkeley website says 54.

[corehun]

I've sent an e-mail to the company for clarification, they haven't replied me yet. I am really curious why we need to adjust volume (54 or 55) while using with an integrated amplifier. Doesn't make sense. Is the volume adjustment based on a software control or a voltage gain selector, if the case is the second one then it should be very useful to match the input voltage of an amplifier.

[joelha]

In looking at their manual, they state that when using a preamp, the level should be set to 54.

Obviously they know how their product should be used better than me.

At the same time, I'm curious why Robert Harley used his at 59 and most other DAC's are to be used at full output.

corehun, I'll look forward to finding out what you hear back from Berkeley.

Joel

[corehun]

I wrote a comment but it flew away? Joelha can you read what I wrote?

[joelha]

corehun,

This is the only post I've seen from you.

Joel

 

"I've sent an e-mail to the company for clarification, they haven't replied me yet. I am really curious why we need to adjust volume (54 or 55) while using with an integrated amplifier. Doesn't make sense. Is the volume adjustment based on a software control or a voltage gain selector, if the case is the second one then it should be very useful to match the input voltage of an amplifier."

[ted_b]

Many preamps can only accept a line level input voltage of 2V RMS (like my CF-080) or 3V RMS (talking single ended here; XLR is usually double that). Many many DACs that have their own volume control are wayyyy hotter than 3V at maximum volume (like 5V or 10V). That volume output would clip the hell out of you preamp. So, yes, take care to match output with your pre's input max. The Ref has a 3.25V max output via single ended, so if 60 is that number (not sure what scale they are using), then 54 is possibly around the 2V recommended mark. As I mentioned, XLR is double that, and yes, their max output with XLR is 6.15 V.

[corehun]

Many preamps can only accept a line level input voltage of 2V RMS (like my CF-080) or 3V RMS (talking single ended here; XLR is usually double that). Many many DACs that have their own volume control are wayyyy hotter than 3V at maximum volume (like 5V or 10V). That volume output would clip the hell out of you preamp. So, yes, take care to match output with your pre's input max. The Ref has a 3.25V max output via single ended, so if 60 is that number (not sure what scale they are using), then 54 is possibly around the 2V recommended mark. As I mentioned, XLR is double that, and yes, their max output with XLR is 6.15 V.

 

So it is not a software volume control, ıt adjusts the output voltage right?

[corehun]

corehun,

This is the only post I've seen from you.

Joel

 

"I've sent an e-mail to the company for clarification, they haven't replied me yet. I am really curious why we need to adjust volume (54 or 55) while using with an integrated amplifier. Doesn't make sense. Is the volume adjustment based on a software control or a voltage gain selector, if the case is the second one then it should be very useful to match the input voltage of an amplifier."

 

That's the one thank you...

[ajay556]

Great review and wondering if i should sell my vinyl, digital and preamp to replace it with alpha reference? How close does it compare to vinyl? And finally does it mean DCS will be out of business....

[corehun]

In looking at their manual, they state that when using a preamp, the level should be set to 54.

Obviously they know how their product should be used better than me.

At the same time, I'm curious why Robert Harley used his at 59 and most other DAC's are to be used at full output.

corehun, I'll look forward to finding out what you hear back from Berkeley.

Joel

 

Hi Joelha,

 

I got a reply from Berkeley. They say,

 

"The Alpha DAC Series 2 has a digital volume control but it does not degrade audio quality. 54 is the level setting that produces the industry standard 2 Volts at full signal amplitude on the single ended outputs.

 

The balanced XLR outputs have a level of +12 dBu at full signal amplitude when the level is set to 54."

 

A little bit qurious, it ise a digital volume control but does not degrade the sound quality and affects the output voltage. Kinda mix of 2 worlds?

 

Best.