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

[opus112]

I didn't say it was. Rather excessive (meaning out of balance with acidity and other taste factors) sweetness is analogous to digital artifacts.

 

[DaveC]

I'd equate sweetness to warmth and fatiguing artifacts to something off in the food, just a tiny bit is enough to ruin the dish.

 

[opus112]

From hanging out on forums over the years I've noticed there are quite a few who like their digital artifacts as these give apparent 'detail'. Indeed I once was one.

 

[bonzo75]

Y I have become particularly suspicious of "air" -- a quality that some audiophiles crave, but which I rarely hear in live music.

There is a LOT of air - maybe we have different interpretations of air (like people did with seamless). But I like the audiophile word airiness and think I relate to it easily, unlike with "tonally grey" or "bleached"

 

[awsmone]

Some of the good issues raised here:-

Not all distortions are immediately obvious but require extended listening, devaluing double blind short term tests
Untrained listeners inability to hear some obvious artefacts to more mature listeners
Some hearing distortions as positives in trying to evaluate detail

Some language issues, airiness, sweetness and warmth, which in some contexts are seen as "natural" and in others as distortions

The "caring" listener versus the " discriminating" listener

It does seem some clarity over language descriptors would make debates more effective......

As point of observation not suggesting good or bad... I recently removed all tubes from my big system, yet retain in my second system

As I tweaked the big rig, I noted resolution detail and timbre improved, but a subtle sweetness to the best recording also developed

I previously had considered sweetness a distortion, but its presence on high resolution playback has me thinking its inherent in the recording, rather than added

My 2 cents

 

[manisandher]

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).

That's funny... you've described perfectly what I didn't like about the Schiit Yggy. I quite liked its 'fresh' sound at first, but it became grating after a while. Again, I'll say that I'm one of the few people who seem to have had this experience with the Yggy - most others love the way it sounds. Perhaps I really did hear something amiss (its measurements do show some strange things going on), or perhaps I had a dud unit...

Mani.

 

[manisandher]

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.

Nice. It's always taken me prolonged periods of listening to gear to decide whether something sounds right or wrong. For example, all of my ultra-expensive cables (bought in more carefree times) lie gathering dust in my basement.

Mani.

 

[Al M.]

There is a LOT of air - maybe we have different interpretations of air (like people did with seamless).

I know what you mean. There's lots of air in terms of a sort of spatiality, but to me "air" on a system often sounds, well, too "airy"

But I like the audiophile word airiness and think I relate to it easily, unlike with "tonally grey" or "bleached"

Oh, I can easily relate to these latter terms

 

[opus112]

Oh, I can easily relate to these latter terms

Me too - typical single-chip S-D DAC sound comes to mind as a primary exemplar.

 

[Al M.]

That's funny... you've described perfectly what I didn't like about the Schiit Yggy. I quite liked its 'fresh' sound at first, but it became grating after a while. Again, I'll say that I'm one of the few people who seem to have had this experience with the Yggy - most others love the way it sounds. Perhaps I really did hear something amiss (its measurements do show some strange things going on), or perhaps I had a dud unit...

Mani.

Interesting. I am also puzzled by Robert Harley's description in his review that there is more emphasis of the upper midrange and more 'sibilance'. If that were the case, the Berkeley would have to have the same thing (it sounds similar in tonal balance), but RH doesn't say anything about this in his review of that DAC. Perhaps my system balance compensates for that, but it seems unlikely. After all, I have heard the Berkeley do fine in a system with Spectral amps, amps that according to many are supposed to sound 'clinical' (??). Oh the mysteries of the high end...

 

[awsmone]

I know what you mean. There's lots of air in terms of a sort of spatiality, but to me "air" on a system often sounds, well, too "airy"



Oh, I can easily relate to these latter terms

This airiness issue seems to be thorny, both in terms of what people are actually trying to describe and it's reality in terms of real music performance ie at a concert

Generally when I go to concerts I don't notice the air till you hear a long after echo when the music stops

As a performer on stage the airiness of the hall is of much more concern

I have often thought a fundamental problem of reproduced airiness is it is captured at a fixed point in the recording process

As we turn up the volume the airiness increases , but in my own experience this is not concurrent with real life situations where there appears to be a "ceiling" or less pronounced increase in airiness of the concert platform as the loudness of the performance increases

I am unclear if this is perceptual or an acoustic reality ?

As a teenager working with tape recorders I was always surprised how much more air of the room was on the tape than we were aware in the performance, I assume this is a fundamental difference between microphones and human hearing?

 

[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.

You have a point about untrained listeners but I wouldn't call it training as such, I would say that it's similar to looking for needles in haystacks - once one is found the visual perception has latched onto the pattern that revealed the needle & after that is established we use a pattern search with much greater efficacy rather than the "I'm looking for a needle" search. Do you get me? The thing is we can't describe what the pattern that we are looking for is, it's an abstract construct in the brain but real, nonetheless as it's efficacy in finding further examples demonstrates.

So in terms of fatigue - I believe it's caused by some non-linearities which may only occur a certain moments in playback when whatever internal conditions in the equipment cause the non-linearity. We can't exactly put our finger on what the non-linearity is (& measurements don't help when they are based on steady state signals which are not the right conditions for causing the non-linearity) so what we are left with is the feeling of fatigue - the auditory pattern causing fatigue is registered & easier to recognise when encountered again.

Auditory patterns, which is stored in certain parts of memory, do not last indefinitely & like memory the more often we encounter the same situation the more strengthening of the pattern occurs until we reach some long term auditory memories, like the sound of our spouses/childrens/significant other's footsteps or voice.

I'm pretty sure that this is what is happening from birth with all our senses - we are laying down in memory, the patterns encountered in the physical world that we are in contact with daily - so we embody these patterns & can compare them with subsequent patterns heard. I'm also pretty sure that this is how we learn to speak in a grammatically correct way - we hear speech patterns & copy that pattern so often that we embody the rules of grammar unconsciously.

 

[morricab]

This airiness issue seems to be thorny, both in terms of what people are actually trying to describe and it's reality in terms of real music performance ie at a concert

Generally when I go to concerts I don't notice the air till you hear a long after echo when the music stops

As a performer on stage the airiness of the hall is of much more concern

I have often thought a fundamental problem of reproduced airiness is it is captured at a fixed point in the recording process

As we turn up the volume the airiness increases , but in my own experience this is not concurrent with real life situations where there appears to be a "ceiling" or less pronounced increase in airiness of the concert platform as the loudness of the performance increases

I am unclear if this is perceptual or an acoustic reality ?

As a teenager working with tape recorders I was always surprised how much more air of the room was on the tape than we were aware in the performance, I assume this is a fundamental difference between microphones and human hearing?

Not sure about it either but I definitely feel some gear is exaggerating this aspect of sound as I too don't hear so much "airiness" in live performances while the music is playing (you described it well so no need to reiterate).

Interestingly, and what makes me suspect it is an artifact rather than really on the recording, is when I switch in and out upsampling (my DAC doesn't have it but the Behringer DEQ2496 has both different dither settings (16, 20 and 24 bit) and upsampling. Going to the dither setting that matches the DAC (in my case 20 bits) opens the soundstage and improves clarity but not "airiness". Turning on the upsampling makes a noticeable increase in "air" but at the same time gives a more "synthetic" overall texture to the sound. It is cool for about an hour and then I have to turn it back off. I had a similar feeling with the Audio Aero Prima DAC. This had the 24/192 STARS digital filter system that upsampled everything to 24/192. It was a very airy sounding DAC but images felt more ghostly than they should have been and ultimately it felt "manufactured" like singers that have been autotuned, so I had to get rid of that DAC.

 

[morricab]

You have a point about untrained listeners but I wouldn't call it training as such, I would say that it's similar to looking for needles in haystacks - once one is found the visual perception has latched onto the pattern that revealed the needle & after that is established we use a pattern search with much greater efficacy rather than the "I'm looking for a needle" search. Do you get me? The thing is we can't describe what the pattern that we are looking for is, it's an abstract construct in the brain but real, nonetheless as it's efficacy in finding further examples demonstrates.

So in terms of fatigue - I believe it's caused by some non-linearities which may only occur a certain moments in playback when whatever internal conditions in the equipment cause the non-linearity. We can't exactly put our finger on what the non-linearity is (& measurements don't help when they are based on steady state signals which are not the right conditions for causing the non-linearity) so what we are left with is the feeling of fatigue - the auditory pattern causing fatigue is registered & easier to recognise when encountered again.

Auditory patterns, which is stored in certain parts of memory, do not last indefinitely & like memory the more often we encounter the same situation the more strengthening of the pattern occurs until we reach some long term auditory memories, like the sound of our spouses/childrens/significant other's footsteps or voice.

I'm pretty sure that this is what is happening from birth with all our senses - we are laying down in memory, the patterns encountered in the physical world that we are in contact with daily - so we embody these patterns & can compare them with subsequent patterns heard. I'm also pretty sure that this is how we learn to speak in a grammatically correct way - we hear speech patterns & copy that pattern so often that we embody the rules of grammar unconsciously.

I think of it more like the "Princess and the pea". No matter how much padding you put under it a sensitive person will still perceive it. There is a lot of truth in that old fairy tale...

 

[morricab]

I'd equate sweetness to warmth and fatiguing artifacts to something off in the food, just a tiny bit is enough to ruin the dish.

I think the overall point is balance...too much of anything is a bad thing...

 

[microstrip]

Interesting. I am also puzzled by Robert Harley's description in his review that there is more emphasis of the upper midrange and more 'sibilance'. If that were the case, the Berkeley would have to have the same thing (it sounds similar in tonal balance), but RH doesn't say anything about this in his review of that DAC. Perhaps my system balance compensates for that, but it seems unlikely. After all, I have heard the Berkeley do fine in a system with Spectral amps, amps that according to many are supposed to sound 'clinical' (??). Oh the mysteries of the high end...

One of initial reasons that determined my choice for the Vivaldi was its performance with CD recordings, many from Deutsche Grammophon, that I considered average or even poor, exactly suffering from emphasis of the upper midrange and more 'sibilance', even some hardness and suddenly sounded great - airy and spreading in space.

DCS gear is not easy to match - and I easily understand many people reserves on it. I am still trying gear on my system to complement it, and easily it becomes massif - everything energetic, detailed but restrained - if the wrong component is brought on the system. But when you hit the spot,it is unreally good!

BTW, the peamplifier in or out dilemma is sometimes driving me crazy - once you you experience the best of both modes you want all of them! I am still waiting for the delivery of a full loom of Shunyata Denali and power cables - as soon as I get them I will start thread on it.

 

[morricab]

From hanging out on forums over the years I've noticed there are quite a few who like their digital artifacts as these give apparent 'detail'. Indeed I once was one.

I think this almost ceratinly what is going on and many of the so-called "high resolving" or "detailed" equipment is the kind that quickly induces listener fatigue for me.

 

[bibo01]

Talking to Mario Bon, an Italian researcher and speaker developer, this is his definition of Listening Fatigue.

 

[morricab]

That's funny... you've described perfectly what I didn't like about the Schiit Yggy. I quite liked its 'fresh' sound at first, but it became grating after a while. Again, I'll say that I'm one of the few people who seem to have had this experience with the Yggy - most others love the way it sounds. Perhaps I really did hear something amiss (its measurements do show some strange things going on), or perhaps I had a dud unit...

Mani.

Its interesting, a person whose opinion I trust highly likes your Phasure DAC...I personally have never heard it but given your system is along the same lines as my own I would definitely be curious about it. It seems you are also sensitive to the kinds of artifacts that can be generated like myself.

 

[morricab]

Interesting. I am also puzzled by Robert Harley's description in his review that there is more emphasis of the upper midrange and more 'sibilance'. If that were the case, the Berkeley would have to have the same thing (it sounds similar in tonal balance), but RH doesn't say anything about this in his review of that DAC. Perhaps my system balance compensates for that, but it seems unlikely. After all, I have heard the Berkeley do fine in a system with Spectral amps, amps that according to many are supposed to sound 'clinical' (??). Oh the mysteries of the high end...

Price difference affects the review I would imagine. If they both have that emphasis and "sibilance" though then neither would be acceptable to me.