Article: Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC Reference Series Review

[ecwl]

I have heard the Berkeley Alpha Reference but in a system completely different from mine and was blown away. Everything Chris said in his review is as is. So from my point of view, there is no doubt Berkeley Alpha Reference is in a completely different league than my Chord QBD76HDSD. But I'll probably wait to hear the Chord DAVE first before deciding whether to consider another upgrade. At some point, one has to stop spending and decide if there are better priorities in life, I guess.

[The Computer Audiophile]

At some point, one has to stop spending and decide if there are better priorities in life, I guess.

Oh c'mon! Only kidding. I echo your wise words.

[Superdad]

At some point, one has to stop spending and decide if there are better priorities in life, I guess.

 

Heresy! ;)

[spectral7]

DAMN!!! As a current owner of an EMM Labs DAC2X and prior owner of several top flight DACs (Spectral, Weiss, Chord, etc.) this DAC is finally THE ONE for me. Chris' review is spot on. And this comes from someone super skeptical of all the effusive reviews out there. I don't mean to suggest that the DAC2X isn't an amazing piece of kit (it is!), but for me, 99% of my library is red book and with 16/44 the Berkeley crushes any other DAC I've owned or auditioned - it's not even close. Of course, the Berkeley comes with limitations. If you own a lot of super hi-rez or DSD material the Berkeley isn't ideal, but for me, my DAC search is over. For now.

[spectral7]

What? You've likely heard a Phasure NOS1? Come on, you either have or you haven't... If you have, which version was it and with which PC and software player? What system were you using it with? With a preamp?

 

You know I have a Pacific Microsonics Model Two. Certainly a SOTA ADC, but considered by many (you?) to be a SOTA DAC too. 3 years ago it was totally embarrassed by the original NOS1. Totally embarrassed.

Mani.

 

Mani, I respect your product and have heard and been impressed with it on several occasions (CES '14 in particular). Having said that, you really should hear this DAC. To compare your NOS1 with the PM2 makes no sense to me - the Berkeley Reference has the PM2 filter and it sounds dated as well. Listen to filter 1.24 and you will hear the what Chris was describing. It's on a whole new level of digital playback. Perhaps rather than dissing Chris' review you should listen to the DAC and improve your product?

[Superdad]

Mani, I respect your product and have heard and been impressed with it on several occasions (CES '14 in particular). ….. Perhaps rather than dissing Chris' review you should listen to the DAC and improve your product?

 

 

Just to be clear, Mani has no relationship to Phasure (the maker of the NOS1) other than as a long-time customer and owner of PeterSt.'s DACs. You make it sound like he is affiliated with the company and I just wish to correct that mis-conception.

[manisandher]

Just to be clear, Mani has no relationship to Phasure (the maker of the NOS1) other than as a long-time customer and owner of PeterSt.'s DACs.

 

Thanks for clarifying Superdad.

 

Although if you read the Phasure forum you'll see that many of us long-time users of Phasure SW and HW products do feel a real part of the 'Phasure journey'. You'll read comments like, "There's no other 'audio club' like this in the world". Of course, PeterSt is clearly at the helm, but he really does listen to what Phasure users think about the sound they're getting. This collaboration between, what I can only describe as, a genius and us users is unique in my experience... and totally refreshing.

 

I'm certainly happy to be called a "Phasurite", but I still have absolutely no financial affiliation with Phasure or any other manufacturer. To the extent that I have never taken a discount for any Phasure product, and wouldn't even if it were offered - they're all crazy value for money as they are, and Peter has spent so much time, effort and passion on each.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

To compare your NOS1 with the PM2 makes no sense to me...

 

Well, when I bought my NOS1, the PM2 it was being used as the main DAC in very high-end systems at various shows. It seemed a fair comparison at the time.

 

... the Berkeley Reference has the PM2 filter and it sounds dated as well. Listen to filter 1.24 and you will hear the what Chris was describing. It's on a whole new level of digital playback. Perhaps rather than dissing Chris' review you should listen to the DAC and improve your product?

 

OK, we've cleared the fact that it's not my product.

 

But I agree that filters are key to good sound. I'm not sure how many filters the Berkeley has built in, but with the NOS1a, I have a whole host to choose from - the totally amazing sounding new filters in PeterSt's XXHighEnd called 'Custom' (with zero pre- and post-ringing), and a whole load on Miska's HQPlayer. The great thing about the NOS1a DAC is that it does absolutely nothing to the signal which it is fed, other than convert it to analog. Only a totally filterless, non-oversampling, non-delta-sigma DAC can do this (and the Berkeley ain't one). The NOS1a is the only such DAC that can accept a 32/768 signal that I'm aware of.

 

But I haven't listening to the Berkeley. And you or Chris haven't listened to the NOS1a with the latest filters in XXHighEnd. So let's just enjoy what we have - it seems that we are thrilled with our respective DACs.

 

Mani.

[joelha]

DAMN!!! As a current owner of an EMM Labs DAC2X and prior owner of several top flight DACs (Spectral, Weiss, Chord, etc.) this DAC is finally THE ONE for me. Chris' review is spot on. And this comes from someone super skeptical of all the effusive reviews out there. I don't mean to suggest that the DAC2X isn't an amazing piece of kit (it is!), but for me, 99% of my library is red book and with 16/44 the Berkeley crushes any other DAC I've owned or auditioned - it's not even close. Of course, the Berkeley comes with limitations. If you own a lot of super hi-rez or DSD material the Berkeley isn't ideal, but for me, my DAC search is over. For now.

 

Not trying to pick apart your message, but Spectral has (or had) a DAC?

 

Joel

[Jud]

Not trying to pick apart your message, but Spectral has (or had) a DAC?

 

Joel

 

CD players, which of course included DACs. There were the SDR-2000 (old) and 4000/4000SL (more recent but I don't think it's still available, though I could be wrong about that).

[joelha]

Right. I know. But that's a CD player. It's not usable as a standalone DAC.

 

I ask because I've heard the latest Spectral CD player and if spectral7 has made the comparison between that Spectral CD player and the Berkeley Reference DAC, which I own, I'd be curious to get his impressions.

 

Joel

[Jud]

Right. I know. But that's a CD player. It's not usable as a standalone DAC.

 

I ask because I've heard the latest Spectral CD player and if spectral7 has made the comparison between that Spectral CD player and the Berkeley Reference DAC, which I own, I'd be curious to get his impressions.

 

Joel

 

Since you've heard both, what are *your* impressions?

[joelha]

Very fair and logical question.

 

The problem is, I heard the Spectral CD player in a completely different system about a year before I heard the Berkeley. So making a comparison is extremely difficult.

 

Joel

[spectral7]

Just to be clear, Mani has no relationship to Phasure (the maker of the NOS1) other than as a long-time customer and owner of PeterSt.'s DACs. You make it sound like he is affiliated with the company and I just wish to correct that mis-conception.

 

Thank you for pointing out my incorrect assumption Superdad.

[spectral7]

OK, we've cleared the fact that it's not my product.

 

Sorry Mani. You are obviously a passionate owner (which I can 100% respect - both the product and your devotion) and I misinterpreted your reply. I apologize for the assumption.

 

 

But I agree that filters are key to good sound. I'm not sure how many filters the Berkeley has built in, but with the NOS1a, I have a whole host to choose from - the totally amazing sounding new filters in PeterSt's XXHighEnd called 'Custom' (with zero pre- and post-ringing), and a whole load on Miska's HQPlayer. The great thing about the NOS1a DAC is that it does absolutely nothing to the signal which it is fed, other than convert it to analog. Only a totally filterless, non-oversampling, non-delta-sigma DAC can do this (and the Berkeley ain't one). The NOS1a is the only such DAC that can accept a 32/768 signal that I'm aware of.

 

We are in agreement about the importance of filters. To answer your question, the Berkeley has 4. For Red Book input there are 16-bit LSB and 24-bit LSB HDCD code detect versions of each. All other sampling rates have 24-bit LSB HDCD code detect versions only.

 

My comparison of the Berkeley versus the NOS1a was based on a long listening session two years ago during which I was very impressed. I did prefer the EMM DAC2X over it at the time, but both sounded like the top tier DACs that they are. Having said that, I'd love to hear the latest version of the NOS1a.

 

In your opinion, how does the NOS1a sound on Red Book? The thing that absolutely blew me away about the Berkeley is just how GREAT it is with Red Book. My library consists of 99% 44.1k, so for me, it was a no brainer when I compared the Berkeley with my previous reference (DAC2X).

 

But I haven't listening to the Berkeley. And you or Chris haven't listened to the NOS1a with the latest filters in XXHighEnd. So let's just enjoy what we have - it seems that we are thrilled with our respective DACs.

 

Mani.

 

You are spot on and I agree!

[spectral7]

Right. I know. But that's a CD player. It's not usable as a standalone DAC.

 

I ask because I've heard the latest Spectral CD player and if spectral7 has made the comparison between that Spectral CD player and the Berkeley Reference DAC, which I own, I'd be curious to get his impressions.

 

Joel

 

Hi Joel! Yes, I own the SDR-2000 Pro and have heard the SDR-4000 CD player on several occasions. The 2000 definitely sounds "dated" compared to modern DACs: it has a "hi-fi" sound which can come across as harsh and fatiguing on some material. Having said that, for a 13 year old DAC, it's a steal if you only listen to Red Book, especially for female vocals (it can be had on the used market for ~2k). I'm keeping mine for a second system I'll be building in the near future. As for the 4000, if you're looking for the best CD player on the market (IMHO), look no further. As for me, my collection is all computer-based so it wasn't an option for me. Having said that, I think it would be super interesting to compare its DAC to the Berkeley on computer media (both fed by the Alpha USB).

 

Jason

[spectral7]

Right. I know. But that's a CD player. It's not usable as a standalone DAC.

 

I ask because I've heard the latest Spectral CD player and if spectral7 has made the comparison between that Spectral CD player and the Berkeley Reference DAC, which I own, I'd be curious to get his impressions.

 

Joel

 

Hi Joel! Yes, I own the SDR-2000 Pro and have heard the SDR-4000 CD player on several occasions. The 2000 definitely sounds "dated" compared to modern DACs: it has a "hi-fi" sound which can come across as harsh and fatiguing on some material. Having said that, for a 13 year old DAC it's still damn fine, especially for female vocals. I'm keeping mine for a second system I'll be building in the near future. As for the 4000, if you're looking for the best CD player on the market (IMHO), look no further. My collection is all computer-based so it wasn't an option for me (at least a financial sane option). Having said that, I think it would be super interesting to compare its DAC to the Berkeley on computer media (both fed by the Alpha USB).

 

Jason