Are the $19,500 Berkeley and $35,000 dCS DACs really worth big bucks?

[853guy]

My circle is the entire audio industry not the few audiophiles you know. As I mentioned at the outset, I hear and see hundreds of systems per year, more than just about any member here. Here is just a sampling of my pictures and notes about the above systems that I have covered: (…)

That aside, as you see above I hear these DACs amply. In no case have they impressed me to think that solid state DACs cause ear fatigue or whatever else Morricab says ails them.

Ignoring the assumption about who I know and/or don’t know, I prefer not to make generalisations in cases where the non-linearity of the variables is greater than my ability to control them, because I will only ever end up making broad-based assumptions, and by doing so, generate observations of lesser and lesser value, potentially arriving at faulty and/or invalid conclusions. (1)

However, if you believe that “hear(ing) and see(ing) hundreds of systems per year, more than just about any member” therefore confers your impressions a degree of weight in evaluating DACs inserted into unfamiliar systems of inter-dependability, subject to show conditions in which the non-linearity of the variables is greater than your ability to control them, and doing it sighted (whilst taking photos), then I can only commend you for possessing supposedly superior perceptual skills, despite the fact you continually remonstrate that perception is by nature easily fooled, and especially so in an environment in which the conditions are not subject to any controls. Even then, were you to “hear and see” hundreds more systems this year, it would still confer no greater credibility to your impressions than anyone else wandering the halls of hi-fi shows subject to the same non-linearities as you.

And though you may indeed believe your “circle is the entire audio industry” (although, to me, that is in-and-of-itself, a laughable overstatement that stretches the plasticity of hasty generalisation and your credibility specifically), I imagine it may be minus the manufacturers you tried to buy and/or have purchased product from in order to submit to a sighted evaluation, having paid for it yourself, while specifically ensuring said manufacturer was not one you represent via your custom-installation business that could lead to loss of revenue, having already decided it can’t possibly make an audible difference, in order to confirm an already-existing bias, while claiming to do so in the name of “science”.

I honestly can't figure out how someone with a straight face can say tube DACs have any significant market share. Take the three DACs that are the title of this thread. All solid state.

And I honestly can’t figure out how the title of this thread and the number of DACs mentioned (or for that matter, whether a component is recommended by Stereophile) has any correlation whatsoever with market share. To my thinking, in order to ascertain the exact proportion one would require a statistically robust consumer study far beyond the pretensions of a thread like this, or indeed, the face value of any post of yours. And, if my reading and maths is correct, the title of this thread has only two DACs mentioned.

And you have to stop hiding in the bushes and throw rocks at me in different threads. If you think solid state DACs produce fatiguing sound, let's hear that so that we know what we are dealing with.

I’m neither hiding in the bushes, nor throwing rocks. I’m here, in plain sight, attempting to point out the selective exposure and fallacy of insufficient sample size you’ve been observed engaging in on multiple threads, which appears to serve little purpose except perhaps to reinforce a pre-existing bias.

And, no, what I think or do not think about specific DACs, or DACs in general has no bearing on this discussion as it stands. For all the solid state and tube DACs I’ve heard, my preferences remain limited to my perception, and I’ll attempt to avoid generalising from the particular, despite your apparent penchant for doing so.

Thanks, Amir.

853guy

(1) If you’ve read that before, it’s because I’ve typed it before, and for the reason that we seem to keep bumping into the problem of you being unable and/or unwilling to articulate a point without recourse to over-estimation and gross-generalisations whether it be related to who your circle is, the ability to evaluate single components in complex systems of inter-dependability subject to conditions of greater non-linearity, or indeed, the results of a single self-administered ABX test of an uncontrolled nature.

 

[caesar]

"Why are people discussing analog components friendlier than the people discussing digital components"

Really? Didn't you post a thread on a fight between a drunken "Sterile" Jon Valin and "Great" Peter Breuninger arguing about what the best turntable is? If those guys had knives, they would have sliced each other up pretty good. And thank God for no guns...

As you mention above, when it comes to imagination of "real" and "best", with no relative comparisons among products, and big egos involved, problems arise...

 

[bonzo75]

Really? Didn't you post a thread on a fight between a drunken "Sterile" Jon Valin and "Great" Peter Breuninger arguing about what the best turntable is? If those guys had knives, they would have sliced each other up pretty good. And thank God for no guns...

As you mention above, when it comes to imagination of "real" and "best", with no relative comparisons among products, and big egos involved, problems arise...

Lol touche. But no I didn't post that thread, that thread had started and I posted a link to MF's Facebook.

 

[PeterA]

"Why are people discussing analog components friendlier than the people discussing digital components"

Refinement? Less fatigue? Insert emoji. Sorry, my mother used to always tell me that the "tone makes the music." Troll post.

 

[microstrip]

"Why are people discussing analog components friendlier than the people discussing digital components"

Are you sure? Just start a thread with a flaming post on direct drive versus belt driven turntables!

Don't you find curious that usually the more radical people discussing digital are those who prefer analog and love telling us about it?

 

[bonzo75]

Are you sure? Just start a thread with a flaming post on direct drive versus belt driven turntables!

Don't you find curious that usually the more radical people discussing digital are those who prefer analog and love telling us about it?

Mine was just a troll post in the spirit of the thread. I was replying to the spoofs from Ian

 

[morricab]

The point was not EQ but that your brain makes up things that are so large audibly such as EQ. If we are susceptible to such bias, then you need to take actions against it.

I will give you a non-EQ example.

I bought some high res music in PCM from Blue Coast music. Cookie, the owner/founder followed up with me and sent me the original format which was DSD. In other words, the PCM version I bought was originally converted from DSD. Since my DAC doesn't play DSD, I had set Roon to covert it on the fly to PCM at 96 Khz. I set up an AB test and was surprised that the DSD converted files sounded so much better. There was more detail, air, analog-like sound, etc. in DSD version that was being converted to PCM. I was surprised there was so much difference between off-line converted files I had bought in PCM versus on the fly conversion by Roon.

Right then I noticed that the on-the-fly converted version was a bit louder. I go in settings and noticed Roon by default was applying a +6db gain in format conversion from DSD to PCM. I dialed that down by 2 db and by then, they were subjectively as loud as each other. The moment I did that, all the sonic differences disappeared! The two had same detail, same air, same analogness, etc. I was being fooled by simple level difference between the two playback chains.

Now let's talk about DACs. These devices have analog outputs with no standards with respect to level. As such, every DAC puts out a different level. See this example review I did on Behringer DAC against iFi: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-behringer-umc204hd.1658/

As the graph indicates, the iFi DAC is 4-5 db louder than Behringer. If this level difference is not compensated for, you could easily think the iFi has more detail, air, analog-like, etc.

Unless you study and go through such experiences you simply are not well positioned to make strong statements about fidelity of DACs. You just can't especially when your view is so opposed to many others.

This is why I LEVEL match when doing comparisons. I stated it several times, I will state it again. I am well aware of the level differences from DACs.

 

[morricab]

Exaggeration offends the truth and casts a shadow on one’s judgement

morricab my friend,

This is a measured response to your spurious assertions and generalisations about valve versus solid state equipment and digital playback more specifically.
You have incidentally made some grossly inaccurate overstatements which offend the experienced and mature audiophile. It is a typical Trumpist oversimplistic, unsophisticated audio world-view of an idealog, not of an open, untainted and objective mind\ear.

I have valve (in the micro amplification domains) and solid state components. In the last two years I had been critically auditioning multiple DACS and CD\SACD\DACs of all ‘orientations and persuations’ with an undistorted and uncorrupted ear. The journey was long and infested with hurdles and monsters but I had to reach ‘Ithaca’. And for me, ‘Ithaca’ turned out to be the T+A PDP3000HV. I posted a synoptic overview of my journey not long ago, but I did not condemn any technology, topology or implementation. Given the complexity of the factors affecting the final sound quality, only an audio fundamentalist will make sweeping generalisations with such certitude. I had jettisoned every preconception of the above variables but I allocated a ‘not-to-be-scorned-at’ budget. The cheap can often become very expensive in the long run (my father’s aphorism) and a crow can not be turned into a nightingale (a greek \turkish saying), although sound is in the ear of the beholder!

You have been rightly admonished by the more sagacious audiophiles in this thread who, no doubt, have had experience with both valve and solid state components. You, either intentionally or inadvertently, offended our collective experiences, acquired knowledge and judgements. It is pointless being diplomatic and politically correct: this is audio racism! By all means, be self-indulgent and wallow in your preferences and biases, and exalt your perceived merits of ANY component, technology, topology, etc. but DON’T condemn and berate in such a blatant and dogmatic way. It is precisely such behaviour that warrants unequivocally blind testing. In fact, any extravagant, extreme contention or claim should be put to the blind eye, open mind\ear test.

You may be an experienced audiophile\reviewer but you seem to be locked into an ideology which (like any ideology) has possesed you. The reactions to your post should have been anticipated. You were not just uttering a soliloquy with an audience of one....youself! We are not fledgelings in this hobby.

Finally, since we both share a common passion for recording, allow me to make a suggestion. Record something from an analogue source and compare the parametres that concern you (tonal\timbral aspects for example) and tell me if good solid state is unlistenable. There are two requirements: an undistorted, uncorrupted ear\mind and to name the equipment used. Further still, play the analogue recording on both solid state and valve players, announce the equipment concerned and let us all know how they compared to the analogue. This, by the way, was my litmus test. No presumption, no assumption, no expectation bias. You can then tell us how ‘unlistenable’ solid state was. We all need to be more prudent.

Be well my friend.

I listen always learning. Cheers, Kostas.

Whoever you are: It is not right or wise to refer to one as a friend and then hurl a number slanderous accusations at them. If that is a measured response i would cringe to see what you think is an unmeasured one. There is nothing at all unsophisiticated in the way I listen nor in the way I approach this hobby. It has never been "black and white" but I have delved deeper than most into WHY things do sound different and what, psychoacoustically speaking is likely to sound more correct to the human listener. Just becuase I have reached some conclusions doesn't make them simplistic or inherently incorrect...it never means that 100% of all listeners will agree...psychology is never that exact. I am a reviewer precisely because I like to oberve and ruminate on the meaning of what I have observed.

You say you have an undistorted and uncorrupted ear? Can you unlearn the experiences that have given you that learning? if you have, you would be the first person in history to do so. Not saying you are not...but color me skeptical. We are all products of our experiences and you starting from zero beggars belief.

My comments are based on my own extensive experiences...feel free to disregard them at your leisure. If you want to take a subjectivists view that all possible design topologies are equally valid and that all listening opinions (sighted or otherwise) are equally valid then I can understand why someone who has reached a conclusion about the audio landscape could be disconcerting to you. My listening and observation took me in a particular direction based on what I have observed in what is now a rather large sample size. If it differs from your findings, well so be it but don't for a second start spreading around terms like "audio racism"...what a nonsense. If anything, it has been the other way around with all those he don't agree with my view pilling up. Quite funny really as it is the usual suspects that are doing the piling on. Pray tell, which of those posting on this thread would you consider sagacious?? I am sure that list will induce some giggles...perhaps from the sages themselves...

Clearly you have your own demons that need to be purged that led you to write such a response. You seem so fragile with this rant. You did get it right that I am experienced...about the only thing in your post that is true...ideology? That seems to be your provenence and the source of this hit post on me. I have based all my opinions on direct obsevations coupled with a scientist's desire to know WHY it sounds like I hear it. I cannot control how others respond to my posts...that is for them to decide.

Actually, you also seem to be missing the point of my posts from the beginning, in your crusade to defend the poor souls of this forum from my "audio racism" as you so bluntly termed it. I merely pointed out that from my experience of previous models of DCS DACs (and a cd player) that I found them not nearly as good as has been claimed for the brand...then the defenders of the faith rushed in to decry my observation and opinon. Then Amir jumped in to claim that I am horribly biased when I stated that often listening to SS dacs I feel fatigued after a session. I feel that way as well after listening to full SS systems...so what? My observation and I am far from alone...even on this forum regarding this.

If you would care to learn the psychoacoustical hypothesis for this, then I am happy to share but I have a feeling that you are not so open to hearing it.

Your whole recording thing is one big strawman based on the premise that I find all SS unlistenable. Given that the premise is not remotely correct there is no point in taking it further even though I have done live recordings on analog and digital tape (yes both were SS based recorders) I have also recorded from LP to digital using both SS and tube based phonostages. Suffice to say the tube one sounded significantly better.

Needless to say, but your whole rant is based largely on a number of false assumptions about what I think and said as well as some issues you clearly have. Your attempt to paint me as some kind of raving evangelist would also be laughable if it didn't have some serious consequences for my reputation. Terms like "audio racist" are so far out there to the point a strong moderator should censor you for it. Are you claiming that I am prejudiced against people who like SS gear? Now that would be a serious accusation...why some of my best friends have SS dacs! How can I be racist against a piece of gear??

 

[caesar]

Refinement? Less fatigue? Insert emoji. Sorry, my mother used to always tell me that the "tone makes the music." Troll post.

Troll post? You are too serious, Peter. This is a hobby and all are having fun.

The only trolls are, per thread title, are the reviewers who proclaim something best without doing the due diligence and comparing to other products, so their readers can better understand the experience of the product they are writing about. And furthermore, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

 

[Al M.]

Clearly you have your own demons that need to be purged that led you to write such a response. You seem so fragile with this rant.

Seriously, Brad? Kostas fragile? Be glad that at this point I don't get as personal with you, because I would have quite a bit to say. But I'll keep my mouth shut. -- I very much liked good portions about Kostas' post, even though he did get some things about you wrong. But of course, that your reaction would be different and overly self-defensive was predictable.

Actually, you also seem to be missing the point of my posts from the beginning, in your crusade to defend the poor souls of this forum from my "audio racism" as you so bluntly termed it. I merely pointed out that from my experience of previous models of DCS DACs (and a cd player) that I found them not nearly as good as has been claimed for the brand...then the defenders of the faith rushed in to decry my observation and opinon.

Actually, no. You misrepresent this completely. Nobody has assailed you for your opinion on previous models of dCS players, and I haven't even heard them, so I have nothing to say about them either. What I did object to was the extrapolation of your experiences towards newer dCS gear -- extrapolations that you claim you didn't make, but which I showed you actually did. (And no, I will not reiterate my points on this, people can read it back from pages 4, 7 and 8 on this thread.)

 

[Al M.]

Ok I just re-read what I said earlier in the thread:

None of those problems intrinsically exist in dCS gear. If you read the assessment of Peter A. about the dCS Rossini,

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...win-s-High-End&p=379841&viewfull=1#post379841

he specifically points out the naturalness of sound with proper harmonic integrity (and he exclusively listens to vinyl at home). And BTW, the most realistic, and thus harmonically integrated, presentation of a triangle, including perfect decay, that I have heard was not from top analog, but from a dCS Vivaldi stack playing a 44.1 kHz Reference Recordings CD.

I should have said "None of those problems intrinsically exist in current dCS gear". As it stands in that post, my statement "None of those problems intrinsically exist in dCS gear" might have been taken to imply that those problems [clinical sound] do not hold for any dCS gear, which I cannot claim since I haven't heard older generations. My apologies for the inaccuracy.

 

[KostasP.]

Hello morricab,

I hope you find this post more measured than my first. My expression "audio racism" in my post now reads "audio prejudice’’, in the hope that it softens your sensitive connotations of that word. The substance of my post remains unaltered however, from the title: "Exaggeration offends the truth and casts a shadow on a person’s judgement’’, to the very end: ‘’We all need to be more prudent’’.

I don’t intend to enter into a verbal confrontation and excite yet another ‘’audio rage’’. I assure you that the thoughts omitted far exceed my sparse thoughts of this post. I have no desire to sift through the thick fog of paranoia in your post and reply specifically to every insinuation and insult , some of which were often smeared with the poison of malice. Such a post will receive the same treatment as my first. Readers can judge the veracity of your multiple posts in this thread and my post.

My post was basically about dogma and stereotyped views in general and solid state versus valve digital playback systems in particular. That there is no monopoly on sound quality by a single technology, topology and implementation, given today’s advancements. As a scientist, expert and reviewer (your own self-descriptions which I do not doubt), I find it ‘’very scientific’’ that, in typical modesty, you dismissed outright my post except for one truth......the one of my reference to you as an expert!

Incidentally, I find many of your posts meritorious and thought-provoking and I assure you that, in the final analysis, what unites us far exceeds what separates us. I also expect that, in a calmer and more rational moment, you will take up my recording advice and test DACs and NOT phono stages, as you cite, dismissing rather arrogantly my specific advice.

I will end this post with the exact caution that I ended my first: ‘’We all need to be more prudent’’. And a further apt but not so elegantly expressed caution for the more circumspect (and with a sense of humour) amongst us. We often witness many self-declared (or not) experts and even scientists climbing the dogmatic tree and, like monkeys, the higher they cilmb the more they expose their backsides!!!!

Be well, healthy and active with what you are doing.

Cheers, Kostas Papazoglou.

 

[awsmone]

I have to admit as an antipodean....I am a bit lost

i have read half this thread, and i am failing to understand some of the responses....

Amirm, and Steve W getting involved....only confuses me further

In the end..isnt it about the music.....not the technology

If someone thinks they get it with a 500 dollar system....I salute them

If it takes 50,000. i appreciate your resolute intent

Music is subjective...as is reproduction....there can be by definition no absolute answer, so arguing it....is self defeating

My idea of this website is it should be insightful, provoking, and helpful

I would never suggest i know it all, because the more i learn, the more i know I don't know

but i do have a little experience, and where appropriate , i try to share

This topic, is almost a flame war type heading, and seriously this sort of discussion is meaningless

But me I am always trying to learn.. and unfortunately learning isn't always linear

I will tell you a story:-

A scandinavian radio station wanted to change to digital from analogue FM

They thought they would do public blind trial of the codecs

They tested 14000 people

who chose one codec

They got to prebroadcast production and one of the audio engineers said

"Are you sure about this codec, there is a terrible whistling in the high frequency ....wont that annoy people in the broadcasts?"

The managers and directors all listened and heard the whistling as explained

I ask you guys

who was right?

The lone engineer

or

The 14,000?

enjoy the music ....and Chill guys !

 

[bonzo75]

Was that lone engineer Amir, he usually hears things 14000 don't

 

[awsmone]

Don make me laugh !....and I have confidentiality agreements to uphold

 

[analog brother]

maybe he uses ribbon tweeters in his monitors???

 

[amirm]

I have to admit as an antipodean....I am a bit lost

[...]I will tell you a story:-

A scandinavian radio station wanted to change to digital from analogue FM
They thought they would do public blind trial of the codecs
They tested 14000 people who chose one codec
They got to prebroadcast production and one of the audio engineers said
"Are you sure about this codec, there is a terrible whistling in the high frequency ....wont that annoy people in the broadcasts?"

The managers and directors all listened and heard the whistling as explained

I ask you guys who was right? The lone engineer or The 14,000?

Well, there is a lot more to that story and a simple explanation. There was NO testing of codecs. Let me repeat: there was NO testing of codecs.

Instead, what was tested was Swedish meatballs against Italian. With the test conducted in Sweden, naturally everyone preferred the softer Swedish ones.

The "lone engineer" was the late Bart Locanthi which as the name should tell you, has some Italian blood in him so he naturally disputed the results and declared the Italian meatball as clearly superior. In his words, "anyone who thinks Swedish cooking can outdo Italian, needs to have their taste buds replaced."

As you can imagine, that was quite insulting to the Swedish radio researchers. So they redid the test, this time documenting the process on "tape:"

enjoy the music ....and Chill guys !

You too although you did create work for me to write an article on ASR Forum and put this story to bed as so much of it is a fish story and incorrect.

 

[PeterA]

I have to admit that I am a bit lost too, and I am now more sympathetic to Ian's earlier question. We seem to be way off topic. Do the more vocal participants of this thread care to answer the question raised in the OP or would you rather argue about typology and testing methods?

For me, the Berkeley Ref DAC is not worth the money. I much preferred the dCS Rossini in a direct comparison in a very revealing system with familiar music. Like the few, I have heard digital artifacts in most of the DACs that I have heard. The Rossini is a rare exception. It either has fewer, or they are less audible to me. I have not directly compared the Rossini to the Vivaldi, so I can not speak to value or "worth". These are expensive and from what I see, technology does keep changing, often for the better. I have heard a modified Berkeley Alfa DAC, the standard Alfa 2, and the Reference DAC. The Alfas are less expensive and may represent a better value, but the artifacts are still there, same with the Ref DAC, in my experience.

I look forward to hearing Al's Schiit DAC sometime this Summer and comparing it to his Alfa DAC. The different technologies don't really matter to me, I am just curious to learn which sounds better to me in his system. It all about personal preference, subjective opinions and how much one want's to spend. We can all answer the question of value raised in the OP, but it really only applies to us. I find it curious why some would join a discussion and not address the OP.

It also seems like claiming value for fellow audiophiles or for fellow members of friendly forums often seems to lead to arguments and positions which people have difficult defending. And why are there links to meatballs in a thread about DACs? This is getting silly.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have to admit that I am a bit lost too, and I am now more sympathetic to Ian's earlier question. We seem to be way off topic. Do the more vocal participants of this thread care to answer the question raised in the OP or would you rather argue about typology and testing methods?

For me, the Berkeley Ref DAC is not worth the money. I much preferred the dCS Rossini in a direct comparison in a very revealing system with familiar music. Like the few, I have heard digital artifacts in most of the DACs that I have heard. The Rossini is a rare exception. It either has fewer, or they are less audible to me. I have not directly compared the Rossini to the Vivaldi, so I can not speak to value or "worth". These are expensive and from what I see, technology does keep changing, often for the better. I have heard a modified Berkeley Alfa DAC, the standard Alfa 2, and the Reference DAC. The Alfas are less expensive and may represent a better value, but the artifacts are still there, same with the Ref DAC, in my experience.

I look forward to hearing Al's Schiit DAC sometime this Summer and comparing it to his Alfa DAC. The different technologies don't really matter to me, I am just curious to learn which sounds better to me in his system. It all about personal preference, subjective opinions and how much one want's to spend. We can all answer the question of value raised in the OP, but it really only applies to us. I find it curious why some would join a discussion and not address the OP.

It also seems like claiming value for fellow audiophiles or for fellow members of friendly forums often seems to lead to arguments and positions which people have difficult defending. And why are there links to meatballs in a thread about DACs? This is getting silly.

they would rather argue about typology and methods.

Peter, it's part of the WBF DNA to seek out any thread with potential as a 'carrier' for the ongoing 'testing narrative' of a few of our members (or tube <-> solid state, or horn <-> dynamic driver). which then sucks in a few other members who enjoy a good tussle.

once the thread descends into this pattern, real information exchange gets shoved aside....as long term agendas and post count attainment take over.

it will be ever thus here.

 

[amirm]

And why are there links to meatballs in a thread about DACs? This is getting silly.

Silliness was the point of it. My name was mentioned in that vein and I answered the same. Would you have expected me to come back with boxing gloves?

The #1 thing that is wrong in audio forums is that people lack sense of humor and don't appreciate levity.

Good grief....