Berkeley Alpha USB still relevant?

[LowMidHigh]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:57 PM, chauphuong said:

In the majority of cases, a good usb converter provide much better digital signals. At present, the likes of Singxer SU1 and Schiit Eitre are much less expensive while offer much the same quality as Berkeley Alpha.

 

Yep, right on. Converting USB to SPDIF is a straight forward process and like any other digitally-based process is a binary proposition: either is works or it doesn’t. 

 

Still, the notions that audiophile adhere to  are essentially correct: excessive rejection of data packs deteriorates the transmission and thus the sound quality. Excessive jitter follows a similar degrading route. Lack of re-clocking gives the transmitter an opportunity to introduce a poor implementation of the USB protocol.

 

However…the operative word is excessive. As it stands, all those converters are pretty much alike in terms of performance. And the rest is good ol’ snake oil: Clobber together some off-the-shelf electric circuits, follow sound engineering when connecting and placing said parts, pack it all up  in a nice-looking box and slap a high price tags for the audiofools to consider it TOTL. Of course, don’t forget to enclose marketing mambo-jumbo and never perform or encourage ABX. Thus, the gravy train chugs on…

 

Note that no audiofool would ever submit himself to a blind-test. Much safer to burry one’s head in the sand...And much more entertaining to babble on about dynamic ranges, clarity, controlled low end and other analog derived concepts in reference to purely digital processes. “Who cares about reality?” they scream as they squander their money. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, LowMidHigh said:

 

Yep, right on. Converting USB to SPDIF is a straight forward process and like any other digitally-based process is a binary proposition: either is works or it doesn’t. 

 

Still, the notions that audiophile adhere to  are essentially correct: excessive rejection of data packs deteriorates the transmission and thus the sound quality. Excessive jitter follows a similar degrading route. Lack of re-clocking gives the transmitter an opportunity to introduce a poor implementation of the USB protocol.

 

However…the operative word is excessive. As it stands, all those converters are pretty much alike in terms of performance. And the rest is good ol’ snake oil: Clobber together some off-the-shelf electric circuits, follow sound engineering when connecting and placing said parts, pack it all up  in a nice-looking box and slap a high price tags for the audiofools to consider it TOTL. Of course, don’t forget to enclose marketing mambo-jumbo and never perform or encourage ABX. Thus, the gravy train chugs on…

 

Note that no audiofool would ever submit himself to a blind-test. Much safer to burry one’s head in the sand...And much more entertaining to babble on about dynamic ranges, clarity, controlled low end and other analog derived concepts in reference to purely digital processes. “Who cares about reality?” they scream as they squander their money. 

 

 

I must disagree with much of your post. Your confidence knows no bounds and your perception of audiophiles is a bit insulting and uninformed. 

 

 

[tmtomh]

Anyone who uses "audiofools" in an argument immediately drops in credibility in my book.

 

(And anyone who thinks I object to the term "audiofools" because it touches a nerve or because I subscribe to all the things they claim "audiofools" subscribe to, drops about 10 steps in credibility.)

[LowMidHigh]

6 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Anyone who uses "audiofools" in an argument immediately drops in credibility in my book.

 

(And anyone who thinks I object to the term "audiofools" because it touches a nerve or because I subscribe to all the things they claim "audiofools" subscribe to, drops about 10 steps in credibility.)

Your "book" seems quite thin... You faied to engage any of my points.

Since appeantly you skimmed through my post, let me highlight that I distinguished between audiophiles and audifools; I agreed with the latter and took  have a view of the former.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

Your "book" seems quite thin... You faied to engage any of my points.

Since appeantly you skimmed through my post, let me highlight that I distinguished between audiophiles and audifools; I agreed with the latter and took  have a view of the former.

 

I don't believe he skimmed your post, as scholarly as it was. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

You faied to engage any of my points.

 

That's an easy way out for you. I could claim the same thing with respect to anything on Earth and anyone who doesn't engage the points fails. 

 

The legitimacy of the points doesn't matter because anyone who fails to address them fails in your book.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I must disagree with much of your post. Your confidence knows no bounds and your perception of audiophiles is a bit insulting and uninformed.

I thought he was spot on.

 

11 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

Anyone who uses "audiofools" in an argument immediately drops in credibility in my book.

Anyone who pays hundreds of dollars for a piece of aluminium the size of a shirt button that costs pennies to make, believing it will enhance the sound if glued to a wall, deserves being called an audiophool. There's no other way about it.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's an easy way out for you. I could claim the same thing with respect to anything on Earth and anyone who doesn't engage the points fails. 

 

The legitimacy of the points doesn't matter because anyone who fails to address them fails in your book.

Why are you attacking LowMidHigh like this? Did he steal your lunch in high school?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Anyone who pays hundreds of dollars for a piece of aluminium the size of a shirt button that costs pennies to make, believing it will enhance the sound if glued to a wall, deserves being called an audiophool. There's no other way about it.

 

You're overlooking many of the details that effect purchasing decisions and if the little aluminum does anything good or bad. If the aluminum rings at a certain frequency in the room, like some of the products currently available, there may be a difference heard by the consumer. In addition, if one makes a million dollars per week, is it really foolish to spend budget dust on one's own amusement in a hobby s/he loves?

[mansr]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

You're overlooking many of the details that effect purchasing decisions and if the little aluminum does anything good or bad. If the aluminum rings at a certain frequency in the room, like some of the products currently available, there may be a difference heard by the consumer.

No, there may not. There is simply no basis for this in our physical reality.

 

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

In addition, if one makes a million dollars per week, is it really foolish to spend budget dust on one's own amusement in a hobby s/he loves?

Yes, it is still foolish even if it is not reckless.

[LowMidHigh]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You're overlooking many of the details that effect purchasing decisions and if the little aluminum does anything good or bad. If the aluminum rings at a certain frequency in the room, like some of the products currently available, there may be a difference heard by the consumer. In addition, if one makes a million dollars per week, is it really foolish to spend budget dust on one's own amusement in a hobby s/he loves?

Ops... It appears you now agree some of those consumer decisions are frivolous... Way to go! 

 

(I wander what it says about the companys behind those schemes) 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Why are you attacking LowMidHigh like this? Did he steal your lunch in high school?

S/He rubbed me the wrong way with his/her incredible confidence that glossed over facts. I have several devices about which s/he speaks and I have personal experience listening to them and talking to the people who make them and competitors who talk about all the devices. Not every engineer in audio peddles snake oil. Some of them are brilliant and capable of giving me an unbiased opinion about other products in the marketplace.

 

Perhaps I'll use a phrase that you used on me several months ago, this simplistic thinking is why we can't have nice stuff :~)

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

No, there may not. There is simply no basis for this in our physical reality.

 

Yes, it is still foolish even if it is not reckless.

 

As an engineer, how can you say a Synergistic bell that audibly rings can't be heard? I'd never buy one, but facts are facts.

 

 

One man's foolish is another's entertainment or exploration. 

[LowMidHigh]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

S/He rubbed me the wrong way with his/her incredible confidence that glossed over facts. I have several devices about which s/he speaks and I have personal experience listening to them and talking to the people who make them and competitors who talk about all the devices. Not every engineer in audio peddles snake oil. Some of them are brilliant and capable of giving me an unbiased opinion about other products in the marketplace.

 

Perhaps I'll use a phrase that you used on me several months ago, this simplistic thinking is why we can't have nice stuff :~)

Are you hallucinating? I didn't mention any products by name. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

Ops... It appears you now agree some of those consumer decisions are frivolous... Way to go! 

 

(I wander what it says about the companys behind those schemes) 

 

I don't understand the "Ops" comment. Can you explain it to me? Ops what? I did it again :~)

 

Consumer decisions are all over the place. I don't care to judge people or purchases or categorize all people who make purchases. Based on traveling the world and talking to thousands of people in the hobby, I think I have a bit better understanding of the people about which you speak so confidently. 

 

Some companies in this hobby peddle nothing but snake oil and some people peddling it are criminals (in more ways than their customers know). I have no problem calling them out and I also have no problem if people spend their own money on such products. I don't want to be the protector of all people's money. Based on the words of some, it's amazing "audiophools" make it to work on time in the morning. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

Are you hallucinating? I didn't mention any products by name. 

You mentioned an entire class of devices. In my book, however thin you may believe it is, that means you're talking about at least two products in that class. 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

S/He rubbed me the wrong way with his/her incredible confidence that glossed over facts.

But you tolerate far worse from others.

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have several devices about which s/he speaks and I have personal experience listening to them and talking to the people who make them and competitors who talk about all the devices

I don't see a single product or manufacturer mentioned by name in the post you responded to.

 

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not every engineer in audio peddles snake oil. Some of them are brilliant and capable of giving me an unbiased opinion about other products in the marketplace.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. All LowMidHigh said was that many moderately priced products perform equally well to much more expensive ones. I really don't see why that should "rub you the wrong way."

[LowMidHigh]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Consumer decisions are all over the place. I don't care to judge people or purchases or categorize all people who make purchases. Based on traveling the world and talking to thousands of people in the hobby, I think I have a bit better understanding of the people about which you speak so confidently. 

Speaking of over confidence. Just read your own words....Rich. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, LowMidHigh said:

Speaking of over confidence. Just read your own words....Rich. 

 

Please let me know what's rich about my statement. 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

But you tolerate far worse from others.

 

There's more to it than that. Much of it I don't see. I happened to see this one this morning and because the thread is short I was able to keep everything in context. I've been guilty in the past of rendering an opinion about a comment but found out later that I missed something 10 pages back that made it much more palatable. 

 

In addition, I can tolerate hie/her posts like this all day every day. I just disagree with the opinion. Not that big of a deal. I encourage people to leave opinions like this, but to also engage in a conversation when called out.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I don't see a single product or manufacturer mentioned by name in the post you responded to.

 

There's no need to mention a product or manufacture when one says "all those converters are pretty much alike." All means all.

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. All LowMidHigh said was that many moderately priced products perform equally well to much more expensive ones. I really don't see why that should "rub you the wrong way."

 

If that's all s/he said, I would've agreed 100%. What I read in the original post was that a Kia Is equal to a Ferrari if one only uses off the shelf parts and solid engineering (as defined by Kia).

 

I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong or overreact, but I don't see either in this case. 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You mentioned an entire class of devices. In my book, however thin you may believe it is, that means you're talking about at least two products in that class. 

Yes, the topic was USB to S/PDIF converters and whether a $1900 device is worth the premium compared to the functionally similar $179 Schiit Eitr, for instance. I see now that your glowing praise for the Berkeley Alpha is quoted on their website. Perhaps this has something to do with your unusually defensive posture.

[R1200CL]

On 4/1/2018 at 2:20 PM, amir57bs said:

CAD GC3 sounds worse and paul hynes not refund my money after 8 month

You have a SR7 for sale ?

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's more to it than that. Much of it I don't see.

Surely you have seen at least one post by GUTB.

 

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

There's no need to mention a product or manufacture when one says "all those converters are pretty much alike." All means all.

Unless proven otherwise, there is every reason to believe they are. The quality of the clock matters, of course, but that's it. Crystek sells excellent oscillators for about $25.

 

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If that's all s/he said, I would've agreed 100%. What I read in the original post was that a Kia Is equal to a Ferrari if one only uses off the shelf parts and solid engineering (as defined by Kia).

A Kia is equal to a Ferrari for the purpose of driving to the store and buying groceries. The fancier car won't make the food taste any better (though the shopping trip can certainly be more fun).

[LowMidHigh]

14 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Please let me know what's rich about my statement. 

 

 

I won't point out the obvious to you. But I'll say something more conservative: run a blind test among your many devices and report with honesty if you could detect any difference. 

 

Now, let forewarn you, since I participated in a few ABX, prepare to eat some humble pie...

[mansr]

28 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As an engineer, how can you say a Synergistic bell that audibly rings can't be heard?

That's not what SR says they do. Besides, a piece of aluminium that shape and size doesn't ring audibly. If it did, I don't see how those devices could be anything other than annoying.