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

[amirm]

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.

So just when we are letting the thread die with some fun, you and Peter thought to do some finger pointing? How is this helpful?

 

[morricab]

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.

"My expression "audio racism" in my post now reads "audio prejudice’’, in the hope that it softens your sensitive connotations of that word. "

Umm...not really. The word prejudice means to "prejudge" and I have done nothing of the sort. I have reported observations directly from experience and come to the conclusions I have come to...so far. There is always the chance to experience a serious exception.

However, human hearing and perception is not as subjective as you would like to believe it is. There are certain patterns that humans find less offensive in the distortion generated in audio equipment (all distortion in audio equipment is essentially unnatural and was not part of our hearing evolution) and that pattern is topology dependent, regardless of how the champions of various gear would like to wish it away. This is the science of hearing and it doesn't always set well with people who champion gear that doesn't conform with the human hearing ear/brain preference. Of course, psychology being what it is, there is and always will be exceptions to the rule and those people are free to pursue whatever fits their own tastes in audio. To deny though that there are inherent patterns that are less offensive to most listeners and to declare this "prejudiced' or "racist" simply silly.

Of course there are a lot of other factors in audio that are not sound related, which must always be accounted for and explain the success of a number of companies...looks is one...price is another. Like it or not, humans in the modern era judge quality largely on these two things and not sound quality. I would probably put both of the DACs in this category given their silly money prices and the likelihood of disappointing sound from either or both.

If anyone has made exaggerations, it was you in your first post. I merely pointed out my observations on the sound of earlier models of DCS gear, which I find disappointing given the price and reputation and projected that the newer ones would likely be disappointing to me as well. This brought a lot of ridiculous accusations from you.

I gave an opinion on gear and you attacked my character and my motivations for posting...only one of us is extreme and it isn't me.

"That there is no monopoly on sound quality by a single technology, topology and implementation, given today’s advancements. "

Well, you see, that is where I disagree and so does psychoacoustic research. As a scientist I cannot ignore what people have learned from testing. What do you mean by "today's advancements?" Which designs are fundamentally different today than 30 years ago, with the exception of Class D (Actually Infinity did this also around 30 years ago)? Most amps today are still Class AB, push/pull, complementary transistor designs with a significant level of negative feedback or Class A, push/pull transistor with perhaps less negative feedback or no global feedback. The AB complementary amp was designed by Jim Bongiorno in 1970s (truly complementary). If it is tube, the majority are Class AB Ultralinear, Pentode or occasionally triode (switchable). Class A triode is rare and SET used to be until people started to realize that when done right, they sound really good. NONE of this technology is less than 40 years old...none of it. NO one has made a true advance and figured out how to make a truly linear amplification device...until then the ancient triode is still THE MOST LINEAR amplification device ever made...period. There are consequences for adding negative feedback to an amp...something that was laid out clearly since the 1950s by Crowhurst, D.E.L. Shorter and others. This is also true for the analog output stages of a DAC or a preamp or a phonostage...not just an amplifier.

How digital is implemented also matters...a lot. There are so many possibilities for unnatural distortion artifacts with the interface, the DAC conversion, the digital filters etc. etc. etc. Humans did not evolve with these sounds and so the tiniest bit sounds really unnatural. Once again, like the triode for amplification, the original idea for DA conversion...the ladder dac...is still probably the best current approach (although chipless DSD is probably even theoretically better). Thus the revival of what was considered a dead technology at the turn of the 21st century.

The longer these things run, the more tubes and the more ladder DACs will gain market share as more and more audiophiles "rediscover" what was lost. It is not nostalgia...it is better sound.

I dismissed your previous post, and this one, for the same reason...inflammatory rhetoric!

As a close, you have not left much room for calmer dialogue or humor with your rhetoric but suffice to say, I have done most of the tests in the past that you advocate...I learned a lot.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Well said. I only hope it not part of the WBF DNA.

 

[Al M.]

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

Good grief....

Yup, I had no problems with those meatballs

 

[amirm]

How digital is implemented also matters...a lot. There are so many possibilities for unnatural distortion artifacts with the interface, the DAC conversion, the digital filters etc. etc. etc. Humans did not evolve with these sounds and so the tiniest bit sounds really unnatural.

Lossy compression creates a ton of these including nasty ones like pre-echo where you hear what is after a transient, before it.

Yet, when we test the general public including audiophiles, they show so little sensitivity to these. As a result as you know, compressed formats are dominant in music consumption. Vast majority of audiophiles will fail tests of 320 kbps AAC against the CD. Yet, three quarter of the size of the original file is gone and lots of non-linear distortions are created. And can objectively be shown to exist.

So you are right about the first part: these are unfamiliar distortions which means we don't have a natural ability to hear them. The second part is just complimenting ourselves without a shred of evidence backing it. We are terrible listeners when it comes to hearing these "unnatural" distortions.

 

[morricab]

Lossy compression creates a ton of these including nasty ones like pre-echo where you hear what is after a transient, before it.

Yet, when we test the general public including audiophiles, they show so little sensitivity to these. As a result as you know, compressed formats are dominant in music consumption. Vast majority of audiophiles will fail tests of 320 kbps AAC against the CD. Yet, three quarter of the size of the original file is gone and lots of non-linear distortions are created. And can objectively be shown to exist.

So you are right about the first part: these are unfamiliar distortions which means we don't have a natural ability to hear them. The second part is just complimenting ourselves without a shred of evidence backing it. We are terrible listeners when it comes to hearing these "unnatural" distortions.

True blind listening story. I have an Infiniti EX30d car that has a music bank recording system. When you insert a cd, it records this cd to the music bank so that you can then subsequently play that music with the bank and don't need the cd any longer. Well, of course that is all nice and convenient and I never stopped it from doing what it was doing automatically and subsequently would listen to some of my favorite music from the bank rather than the cd. I noticed rather shortly though that the sound from the music bank was considerably worse, flat presentation and also flattened musical dynamics and tone more uniform and bland. I thought, well perhaps the bank is using a different DAC system and that is what is responsible but the sound is so significantly worse that I finally, after a few months, finally looked into the menus to find out if it had something to do with the recording quality. Sure enough, when I dug in I found out that in fact it was NOT ripped at cd quality but at much lower mp3 quality. I had sensed it right from the get go but brushed it off first as imagination, second as a different playback and then finally realizing it might be how it was ripped found it was at a significantly lower than cd quality. My hearing though, detected it nearly immediately that "something" was off from the cd. Most consumers couldn''t care less...I am an audiophile and I care and can hear it easily. Why do I or any serious listener care any more about what the majority of people whether or not they can hear it anymore than Usain Bolt cares about if I can run 100 meters or not?

Finally, you either mistakenly, or willingly, misinterpreted what I said. Unfamiliar distortions are MORE audible not less audible. We don't have the natural ability to mask them. Unmasked they are audible to ridiculously low levels. This is why jitter down to ps is audible, for example. You are mistaking hearing for caring. Most people simply don't care that the sound quality has degraded...they just want distraction.

 

[Alpinist]

Any chance we could bring this thread back to its original track, are the Berkeley Ref2 and DCS $35K DAC worth the high cost of admission? I've got the Berkeley Ref2 DAC with MQA arriving a few weeks from now so I'll hold my opinions until I hear it in my own system. I would appreciate to hear the opinion of anyone who owns either of these fine DACs.

 

[DaveC]

Morricab didn't say he thought they produced fatiguing sound, he mentioned that fatigue was what he felt after listening to them. Huge difference - one opinion, the other, experience.

I think this is key (the idea about feeling fatigue after listening), and fits into my beliefs about the psychoacoustic and psysiological effects of stimulating sounds, which also explain the differences in personal sensitivity to fatiguing artifacts in music.

I believe certain fatiguing sounds are stimulating in different ways, for example nails on a chalkboard vs a siren vs a breaking branch or crunching of leaves in the forest. All will get your attention but the reaction is different. So while there are probably multiple categories of stimulating sound, at a higher level the net effect is a stimulation of the nervous system that causes automatic reactions in the body... I think we'll be able to correlate sounds to physical reactions such as increased blood pressure, adrenaline levels, etc.

The general idea is fatiguing sounds cause uncomfortable stimulation of the nervous system whether you are consciously aware of the fatiguing artifacts or not due to our automatic interpretation of the artifacts as something that needs attention, a survival mechanism (branch breaking) or learned response (siren). Fatiguing artifacts are often mistaken for additional detail or "excitement" (accentuated leading edges), but over time it literally becomes fatiguing, this is why people think long-term testing is a good idea, it gives their bodies time to react to the system's artifacts. As long as the artifacts are below a certain threshold, which differs from person to person, then the sound won't be fatiguing.

IMO both tubes and SS can be very good and below the threshold of fatigue for a huge majority of people. Implementation is key. I've tested SS amps that sounded slower and "tubier" than my SET amp.

 

[jkeny]

I think this is key (the idea about feeling fatigue after listening), and fits into my beliefs about the psychoacoustic and psysiological effects of stimulating sounds, which also explain the differences in personal sensitivity to fatiguing artifacts in music.

"Yet, when we test the general public including audiophiles they show so little sensitivity to these. "
The funny thing is - did these 'tests' involve a test for fatigue over long term listening or was it an A/B test?

 

[PeterA]

Any chance we could bring this thread back to its original track, are the Berkeley Ref2 and DCS $35K DAC worth the high cost of admission? I've got the Berkeley Ref2 DAC with MQA arriving a few weeks from now so I'll hold my opinions until I hear it in my own system. I would appreciate to hear the opinion of anyone who owns either of these fine DACs.

Thank you. I was hoping for just this but was criticized for "finger pointing" and told the thread was slowly dying and videos of meatballs are just fine. Funny indeed.

 

[DaveC]

Unfamiliar distortions are MORE audible not less audible. We don't have the natural ability to mask them. Unmasked they are audible to ridiculously low levels. This is why jitter down to ps is audible, for example. You are mistaking hearing for caring. Most people simply don't care that the sound quality has degraded...they just want distraction.

People mask them with warmth, it smooths out fatiguing artifacts... you know what they say though... 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[DaveC]

"Yet, when we test the general public including audiophiles they show so little sensitivity to these. "
The funny thing is - did these 'tests' involve a test for fatigue over long term listening or was it an A/B test?

I think for untrained listeners fatiguing artifacts aren't specifically recognized... but that doesn't mean the sound is ok and it doesn't have some negative effects on the listener. I believe long term listening would make people more sensitive to differences in levels of fatiguing artifacts but it would be hard to control.

 

[jkeny]

I think for untrained listeners fatiguing artifacts aren't specifically recognized... but that doesn't mean the sound is ok and it doesn't have some negative effects on the listener. I believe long term listening would make people more sensitive to differences in levels of fatiguing artifacts but it would be hard to control.

The point is that fatigue isn't something that will show in an A/B fast switching test - MP3 codec testing (which was what was being talked about in the quote) was tested using A/B fast switch testing, not long term listening tests

 

[PeterA]

I think for untrained listeners fatiguing artifacts aren't specifically recognized... but that doesn't mean the sound is ok and it doesn't have some negative effects on the listener. I believe long term listening would make people more sensitive to differences in levels of fatiguing artifacts but it would be hard to control.

Completely agree. Thank you and jkeny for bringing fatigue back into the discussion. I don't know what causes it, but I sure can hear it with certain components and in certain systems, sometimes quite quickly, and other times, it takes longer term listening. I try to avoid it at all costs because it prevents long term satisfaction, at least to me.

I also find the degree of fatigue often effects how loudly I can play a system. The less fatigue and the lower the distortion or artifacts, the louder I can listen and still be relaxed and engaged. As my own system has evolved and improved, I find myself listening quite a bit louder than I did a few years ago. I do follow Al's advice and often check levels with a SPL meter to be safe.

 

[Al M.]

The point is that fatigue isn't something that will show in an A/B fast switching test - MP3 codec testing (which was what was being talked about in the quote) was tested using A/B fast switch testing, not long term listening tests

That's right. Fatigue will show only in longer-term listening.

 

[PeterA]

That's right. Fatigue will show only in longer-term listening.

Usually, but not always. I've heard it almost immediately, and it is a sure sign that something is very wrong. Interestingly, it is sometimes mistaken for increased "detail" and resolution, especially with regard to high frequencies, transients and dynamics. Room acoustics can also play a role, in my experience.

 

[DaveC]

That's right. Fatigue will show only in longer-term listening.

If you can recognize the artifacts then you know immediately, otherwise it can take some time to be annoying.

 

[Al M.]

Usually, but not always. I've heard it almost immediately, and it is a sure sign that something is very wrong. Interestingly, it is sometimes mistaken for increased "detail" and resolution, especially with regard to high frequencies, transients and dynamics.

Yes, a tonal balance tilted towards the lower treble will give you a superficial impression of more "resolution" and "detail", but mostly it's just an artifact that quickly becomes fatiguing. I have become particularly suspicious of "air" -- a quality that some audiophiles crave, but which I rarely hear in live music, at least not to a great extent (in some specific acoustic circumstances, yes).

Room acoustics can also play a role, in my experience.

Indeed. About 75-80 % of what I iniitally judged to be 'digital artifacts' (with my old Wadia 8/12 combo) were room issues that went away after acoustic treatment of the room.

 

[opus112]

That's right. Fatigue will show only in longer-term listening.

This line of discussion brings back memories of the old Coke vs Pepsi taste comparison story. In the version I heard, a quick sip from a small paper cup in the 'Pepsi taste challenge' had punters preferring Pepsi to Coke. Coke got worried enough about this result to introduce 'New Coke' (this was back in the 1980s I recall) which was able to gain the preference of blind tasters in this kind of test. However 'New Coke' turned out to be a lemon so much so that the re-introduction of original Coke in the guise of 'Coke Classic' was needed to have drinkers return to the Coke fold.

The explanation was that Pepsi won on a short sip challenge because it was sweeter than Coke. However customers didn't appreciate the sweeter taste of 'New Coke' when drinking a whole can. I infer that excessive sweetness is fatiguing in the same way that digital artifacts are.

 

[bonzo75]

Why is sweetness considered an opposite of digital artefacts?