Benchmark, Bryston and Berkeley Labs DAC for a PC audio system
-- Wed, 02/25/2009 - 07:09
I am trying to build an all digital music system. As a first step I have been studying my options for a stand-alone DAC's and I have narrowed my options down to three. Auditioning will be either a difficult or an unavailable option. However, I am starting with a clean slate so I have no other components to match to. Since my system will be only digital, I am really looking to forgo the pre-amp which will only serve the volume control function for my purpose.
The qualities I like are clarity, articulation, ability to render musical passages well delineated without being mashed into an audio mess. Detail is welcome if it is not unnaturally emphasized as I find that sometimes distracting. Most importantly I like the listening experience to be musical, engaging and non-fatiguing. I have had some experience with a couple of quite expensive audio systems that ranged from listening to a sound that was annoying and devoid of beauty to listening to what sounded like a faultless presentation which I just could not find myself drawn to. Surprisingly, I still remember my first experience with a good music system as being one of the best. No exotic components were involved. Only T+A transmission line standmount speakers (around USD 2000) driven by Cambridge Audio components. That big smile and that foot tapping the floor came naturally and involuntarily. Glancing at the slyly smiling salesman who had steered me away from listening to mid-priced B&W speakers that were getting good reviews at the time, I thought he was used to seeing that reaction. The sound was totally engaging, entertaining, and beautiful. Unfortunately, I listened to this system in a different country and there are no T+A distributors where I live, so I can not repeat the auditioning. Cambridge Audio amps are, however, on my audition list.
So here are my three choices.
1- The Benchmark DAC USB or USB/Pre
Pros: Supposedly very good sound. Unmatched package at the price. The only DAC that allows USB input up to 24bit/96 khz. TAS product of the year. Stereophile calls the built-in headphone amplifier outstanding. It pleased many reviewers. Company strikes me as transparent about the product and its measured performance.
Cons: Reviews emphasize the value for money and the dead quiet background. Other than the tremendous value for money, I am not sure where on the sonic scale it compares to other products in the $1500 to $4000 price bracket. This DAC opened the door to great reasonably priced DACs a few years ago but ever since DACs have been getting better and cheaper each year.
2- Bryston BdA-1 ($2000)
Pros: Company says the DAC sounds the same as the BCD-1. TAS review gives the BCD-1 the rare comment that "It gets the music just right" and gave it a PoY award. There is no shortage of favorable reviews about it.
Cons: No volume control (big minus for me). USB input is limited to 16 bit and low freq.
3- Berkeley Labs Alpha DAC
Pros: The rave review by Robert Harley about the Alpha DAC performance with everything from CD-quality signal to high res. makes me wonder if (while the price is outside the outer stretches of my budget for a DAC) it could be an investment against quick obsolescence. DAC also has volume control.
Cons: No direct PC input of any type. Price. I will have to import it from the U.S. (same case with the Benchmark DAC) so a mistake will be costly
My question is: What do I lose sonically by picking the Benchmark over the Bryston? and what do I lose sonically by picking the Bryston or the Benchmark over the Berkley DAC?
I also need some help on how to ascertain that the DAC can feed a particular amplifier without distortion. What specs to look for? How can I judge if the Bryston for example can feed an amplifier through a passive volume attenuator (do not know if any high quality options are available for these as well)? Do power amplifiers require large current levels from the device feeding it? I am good with mathematical formulas by the way.
Thanks and Best regards,
Hesham
I have not heard the Bryston and the Benchmark, but our reviewer Alan Taffel has compared them in his work on an upcoming feature article on USB connection, which includes a review of the Bryston. I can tell you that he considers the Bryston to be in the top tier.
I've been listening to the Berkeley Alpha DAC nearly daily since the review. It is a very close second to the best CD playback I've heard, the Spectral SDR-4000 Pro (which was just returned to Spectral). One factor that I suspect contributes to their superb (and similar) sound is their digital filters; both run custom filtering software on an Analog Devices SHARC DSP. Given the association between Spectral and Berkeley (Berkeley is an offshoot of Pacific Microsonics, the company behind HDCD, which Spectral designer Keith Johnson co-invented) it wouldn't surprise me if the digital filters were similar.
These two products don't have the characteristic "fingerprint" of CD sound—the hardness, glare, and glassy texture in the midrange and treble. In many ways, they make CDs sound closer to the high-res versions. I've compared Reference Recordings HRx 176.4kHz/24-bit files to their CD counterparts on the Berkeley and other players, and the Berkeley sounds closer to high-res when playing CDs.
Similarly, the digital filter in the new Meridian 808.2 is reportedly largely responsible for that player's ability to make CDs sound closer to high-res. I heard this for myself at CES, and am scheduled to get a sample for evaluation. The 808.2 also uses a novel digital filter running on a DSP platform.
One more thing about the Alpha DAC; the feature set and user interface are well thought out. It's highly functional and easy to use, particularly when driving a power amplifier directly. The ability to bypass a preamp is a big benefit, sonically, ergonomically, and financially. The Alpha's output stage is robust enough to drive long cables (mine are 25') and a power amplifier input without the need for a buffer.
Thank you Robert for replying to my post. Now I know the secret of the two black snakes running along the length of your listening room which I saw in one of its photos :-)
It sounds like you really like the Berkeley DAC. I am leaning towards choosing the Berkeley DAC as well for several reasons, many of which you elaborated on quite well. If the Bryston had a volume control on the analog signal output, it probably would have been an easy choice for the big price difference and the its good performance. I have been studying my options and found that a good passive volume control like the one from Placette Audio costs $1000 for a single ended unit and twice that for a the balanced version. My communication with Bryston was not conclusive about the BDA-1 ability to drive an amplifier through a passive volume control . I do not want to keep wondering whether I am hearing the best out of the DAC or not by forcing it to do something it might not have been designed to do. I found your observation on the Berkeley CD material playback to be very useful because of all the CD's I already have.
I am now investigating the easiest way to transfer the digital signal to the DAC. I am surprised at the few options available and wondering why the industry is lagging in that area. I think that building a dedicated PC fitted with a professional sound card just to do signal relay from the hard disk to a DAC is an overkill. A few USB signal transfer solutions exist which can relay a 24bit/96khz signal but not higher. There are professional firewire products like the ones from RME which can output signals up to 24bit/192khz via the common digital audio connectors but they are quite expensive, which is no surprise since they were built for more sophisticated purposes. Other than the $2000 Slimdevices Transporter, which is limited to 96khz, I could not find a single product that can take high res. data from a network cable and output it as a PCM signal through the common digital connectors. The only product which is probably the most adequate for the PC audio function at this time is the Weiss Vesta, which was designed to be just a firewire signal interface. It can address high res data up to 192khz. Hopefully, it won't cost the price of a new PC. I do not know why it is taking too long for somebody to build just a simple box that can do the conversion between network-fed data and the common audio digital interfaces, without forcing us to buy their DAC as well.
It is interesting to know that the designers of Berkeley and Spectral products shared some of their design background. I think you are right that designers are probably using DSP as a versatile way to implement their know-how in handling the digital signal. It will be very interesting and telling of the state of the industry development to know how the $16,995 808.2 performs compared to the latest digital to analog converters like the Berkeley Alpha. I personally believe that in the near future, companies will find it quite difficult to justify giving a digital audio player even a small five digit price.
Hello, Robert Harley,
Once each of at last begins to realize what specific phenomena are crucial to our own perception of audio verity or otherwise, there are endless small discoveries in store, and a good few surprises. This learning process has increased my appreciation for and sensitivity to two related aspects of recording and proper playback.
The first of these has evolved into my prime measuring staff for audio fidelity: The degree to which fundamentals and their related low harmonics are properly associated within a recorded soundscape. Color, character, timbre, and important cues for proximity and localization are among the characteristics I associate with a successful marriage of foundation pitches and their crucial series of partials.
The second, related phenomenon is directly relevant to my query. This is the unimaginably critical maintenance of timing alignment among frequencies across and demonstrably beyond the audible audio spectrum. In your March 2010 Industry News for TAS, you described the wonderfully intriguing prospect of what I assume is a phase coherency processor, Barry Stephen Goldfarb’s invention of what he has dubbed QOL. In writing about this with appreciation, but also with discernible self-restraint, you piqued my interest in no small way.
The implications of a visceral improvement in playback at all levels of fidelity are pretty obvious. One should assume as little as possible in sussing out a new technology unheard, but I can’t resist asking whether introduction of such a phase-smart bit of circuitry at an appropriate stage in the recording process is among the inventor’s - and backer Larry Alan Kay’s - intended applications. The instant question is whether a stream of audio subjected to the double whammy of QOL applied twice will suffer degradation. These, of course, are phenomena that someone who hasn’t yet experienced this processing is not qualified to suggest and speculate upon.
So my query: While the playback applications of this new technology lead one to dream of swept-away veils and the recovery of once-masked recorded depths, is there likely to be a a marked increase in clarity, spatiality, etc. in recordings made under the benign corrective gaze of a well-conceived phasing czar?
I found no mention of your March 2010 article at avguide.com, perhaps an intentional lag while the current TAS is on newsstands and coffee tables. You need not reply to me directly, but I’d certainly welcome hearing from you, should this be a topic you’ll pursue as the first production QOL devices and reactions to their audible effects accrue. If, indeed, a double pass through the processing does not measurably degrade the audio stream, that alone would be remarkable, not to mention newsworthy.
Most sincerely,
Christopher Greenleaf
Recordings of Acoustic Music in Natural Acoustics
Aufnahmen akustischer Musik in einer ihr natürlichen Akustik
Enregistrements de la musique classique dans une acoustique qui lui est naturelle
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, it is possible that you have not entirely grasped the situation.
- 19th-c. British dictum, after Kipling's "If"
Robert, If I may, one query on the Berkeley - Spectral combination you are using.
Are you using the Studio Universal verison of the DMA360 monoblocks?
If not, am little suprised that Spectral would support use of a non-Spectral pre-amp with the standard version.
I have auditioned a Berkeley - Spectral DMA 360 (Studio) - Rockport Aquila system, and it most definitely seduced.
Again, we can't "make" CDs sound like hi-rez - players have no innate ability to do that. The best CD players, like Meridian and Spectral, use advanced technology to simply reveal what's on the recordings. For best results, we should try to use a (solid-state) memory drive instead of the optical read-in section of these great players.
For those who said CD was "low-rez" or "we need a new format" are about to eat a lot of crow.......
.
Those who said CD was low-res had to wait for over 25 years to get to where we are now. There is an absolute reference which is the analog signal which high-res and CD-res digital data try to capture with varying accuracies. The DAC does an interpolation to try to contruct what was between the digital samples.The more intelligent interplation algorithms become and the better designers' understanding of the ways to decrease the artifacts that get introduced in the coversion process, the better the converted audio output matches the original analog signal. CD benefits from these developments more than high res since it already had a lot of room from improvement being further away from the original anaolg signal than high-res. The advancement in digital to analog conversion allows CD sound to inch closer to high res sound which does not benefit from these advancements to the same degree. CD is quite high res. at capturing low frequencies and very low res at capturing high frequencies reaching only 1.1x the required theoretical sampling minimum at the upper end of human audiability of 20khz. This is just the mathematics of it. We have been told that all along by those who found bass from CDs to be quite good while the treble left much to be desired.
The analog "reference" has a lot of problems - the main culprits being that it's (much) higher in noise and distortion and captures less dynamic range than a digital recording system.
We had to wait 25 years for great CD playback ? Well, most did. But those few audiophiles who bought a Reimyo or Zanden CD player (4 to 5 years ago) did not. LP can't brag - it's still improving, 60 years after it came out. And *that* was an improvement over its analog predecessor from the 1800's !!
Then the math. In my view, it's only a matter of time before (CD) digital can calculate the full waveform with no issues, anywhere. Playback was really mucking things up...and the highs, the most difficult part of the spectrum to reproduce, were the first thing listeners would complain about. This goes beyond source components - look how long it's taken for tweeters to reach the level they're at now. And they still have a way to go - no tweeter I've heard matches the quality of a (zero-mass) arc tweeter design.
SACD was easier to play back - it put much less demands on conversion than CD. I'll use the Charlie Hanson example comparing a box cake to one made from scratch. Yes, the "scratch" cake is more work - but it's a better product in the end.......
Regarding no direct computer connection for Berkely, I would not worry so much about that. Depending on sound card that you use, the one
that gets a lot of talk for using with high end system is the Lynx AES16 which uses XLR anyhow so no problem there.
Most USB input at this time is limited to 24/96 (not a limitation of USB connection per se but hardware only support this, I think
USB equipped gear that support 24/176 is slowly coming out) so if you want the ability to play 24/176 files via USB, you might have to wait awhile
longer.
Robert, I wonder if you ever did try the Esoteric D03 with HRx? I assume that by the time you got HRx, you did not have Esoteric equipments anymore. How would you rate D03 with Rubidium clock vs Berkeley.
I am leaving the option a dedicated PC with a lynx card as a last choice. My current personal computer is a laptop. I have elaborated more on the results of my search on a method to feed a high res audio signal to the DAC in my reply to Robert above. Depending on the price of the Weiss Vesta firewire interface, I will be considering the dedicated PC/Lynx card solution. The bandwidth of USB2.0 can handle audio signals including 24/192. However, I remember reading somewhere that Benchmark made a conscious decision to go with USD 1.0 and not 2.0 in their DAC. There was a technical reason for their choice that I can not remember now. I believe all we need is box that can read data from a network, have the ability for decoding the compressed audio formats into normal PCM, reclock the signal and output it in the three common audio interfaces. Basically we need the input section of the Slimdevices Transporter up to but not included the DAC and updated to handle 24/192 instead 24/96.)
I was using the standard version of the DMA-360, driven directly by the Alpha DAC (balanced) or through a Spectral DMC-30SS preamp (unbalanced). Driving the amplifiers directly yielded an advantage in low-level resolution (the DMA-360's input architecture is balanced).
I agree that you should not discount the Alpha DAC because of a lack of USB input. You're better off with an AES/EBU signal sourced from a low-jitter device like the Lynx AES16 card.
Unfortunately, I had already returned the Esoteric D-03 when the computer playing HRx had arrived.
All the Spectral gear went back earlier this week. The DMA-360 is a spectacular amplifier, particularly when amplifying high-res signals (a situation that reveals its superiority in resolution, speed, soundstaging, timbre, and transparency). I miss it already.
Just to make it harder on you, there is one more choice you might look at: the forthcoming Ayre QB-9 USB DAC. They've come up with a way of transmitting data asynchronously over USB, allowing full clock control in the Ayre unit for lowest jitter, and then combined that with the same D/A and electronics from their CD players, including the new minimum phase digital filter that has everyone raving, for "about $2500":
http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf
I'm personally looking at the AlphaDAC for my main system, and possibly the Ayre or Bryston for feeding my Headroom amp and just-ordered Sennheiser HD-800 'phones.
Thanks.. I did not know of that. However, it seems that like the Benchmark DAC, the USB input will be limited to 24/96. Very few details are available like what other signal inputs will be available, what is the maximum bit depth/signal frequency supported, whether it will have a volume control and when it will be available. However, for USD 2500, and Ayre's history, I am sure they will make something special. The white paper however has a sentence that sums up why I think the PC audio part of the HIFI industry is not developing fast enough. It says"Unfortunately, very few (if any) companies are capable of creating both a state-of-the-art D/A converter, and state-of-the-art computer software that is required." I think they are right. The lack of the dual PC and audio design expertise is the reason the interface from the PC to a DAC of your choice at this point in time requires a professional sound card fitted in a PC that practically is likely to be dedicated to the audio playback function with all the inconvenience of having to control the playback at the PC and not from your listening chair with a remote control
just to quickly submit a response.....Cary Audio Design has a new dac with 32/192 specs. check out Cary website or youtube....Audiogon; CES 2009....this thing should put a smile on your face
Weiss Vesta is not cheap either, They cost almost as much as Berkley unit, I believe. One inexpensive option for you would
be Emu 0404 USB box. It is around $200 and is actually a AD and DA converter and well as interface with Coax/optical in/out
(switchable to AES/EBU whatever that means). I assume that if you can connect via USB2, you should be able to output
24/192 via USB and convert it to AES/EBU to your DA converter. It might be something worth investigating.
Bob, I wonder if you could comment about Berkeley vs Esoteric D-03/rubidium clock as far as 16/44 playback. I know that you don't have
both units at the same time so it is not an ideal way to make a comparison. I am considering adding an external clock to
my D-05. However, both Esoteric clocks cost quite a bit, one is more than half the cost of Berkeley while the Rubidium clock
is more than twice the price. It may make more sense to just upgrading D-05 to Berkeley if it really is as good or
better than D-03/Rubidium clock combination.
The 0404 was one of the options I explored. However, I went quickly through its manual and that of the M-audio Transit which does a similar job and found that you need to set the sample rate manually, which I am not sure is a convenient setup.
Are you sure you are referring to the Weiss Vesta and not the Minerva? The Vesta is just a high quality firewire digital to digital interface with jitter reduction. The Minerva is a complete firewire DAC and I actually read somewhere (but did not confirm) that it costs the same price as the Berkeley DAC. I am waiting for a price quote and that should decide which path to take.
For reference, the SPDIF output on the EMU 0404 USB box is only 24/96 when using a PC and (pitifully) drops to 24/48 with a Mac.
There is an M-Audio ProFire 610 which is supposed to do 24/192 thought I've never seen anyone confirming this.
The search for right DAC for my setup has led in many directions. But as I researched and compiled trusted opinions, the decision came to be between the Bryston BDA-1 and the Benchmark DAC1 USB. The reviews for both have ranked them among the best buys for your money in both build and sonic quality, yet to my knowledge, there are no direct comparisons between the two available. And, regrettably most retailers do not sell both, let alone have demos of both for comparison. Fortunately for me I was able to come across one dealer that not only does, but one that was also able to set up an A/B listening session. For that, I have to take a quick minute to thank the people at Westlake Pro Audio (www.westlakepro.com) for allowing me 2 hours use of one of their professional mixing studios filled with some of the finest audio gear as well as one DAC1 USB and one BDA-1.
I brought with me my MacBook Pro with 25 records of various music stored as AIFF 44.1K 16bit files, a mini-to-toslink fiber optic cable, and a USB 2.0 cable. All Midi Controls were set using that timesaving application, CA-Sample Rate, provided by the people at Computer Audiophile (www.computeraudiophile.com) with everything set at 44.1K and 16bit, except for the when using the Benchmark, which forces 24bit. My salesman joined me as well as the Manager of the studio who was also interested hearing what the two had to offer.
As we began A/B’ing between the two from song to song, it was instantly apparent how much louder the Bryston was then the Benchmark. According to the decibel meter on the mixing board, it was approximately 3db louder! To my knowledge the Benchmark does has level adjustments on the back that could easily fix that, if its volume is an issue to you.
Utilizing the USB connections of both units, we all appreciated the stronger treble and tonal balance that the Benchmark had over the Bryston. Voices were slightly fuller, symbols were crisper with a longer finish, and keyboards and synthesizers had more impact and vigor. On the flipside, we also noticed that the bass was stronger and more controlled with the Bryston. The difference was equally as dramatic as the Benchmark’s strengths in higher frequencies.
In terms of sound stage, the Bryston was slightly wider and a tad more room filling. The Benchmark tended to be more forward and central. Separation and definition were about the same on both units with some songs from Thom Yorke’s The Eraser Rmxs album sounding better on the Benchmark while others from Animal Collective’s Merriweather Post Pavilion sounding better on the Bryston.
Unlike the Benchmark, the Bryston allows for the control over the up-sampling feature. Throughout our tests, we almost always preferred the up-sampling to be on. The difference between the function being on and off was miniscule, and I liked the fact that we had the ability to turn it off or on with the push of a button.
After and hour and a half, both the manager and I preferred the Benchmark simply for its clarity and balance, with the salesman preferring the Bryston for its “pleasing scoop” that he felt evened out the balance with the midrange at higher volumes. With my mind made and as we were packing everything back up, I remembered the mini-to-toslink cable that I had brought. Knowing that the Bryston functions differently via USB then it does via its other inputs, we decided to switch the cables and do another quick test to see it there is a noticeable difference. And, yes, there was a noticeable difference.
The Benchmark sounded very similar to an almost unnoticeable degree, but the Bryston opened up revealing much of the lost highs that it lacked via USB. It was not 100% at the level of the Benchmark, but it was 95-97% there, creating a very natural and full sound. The Bryston’s bass also improved in tightness, which could be a result of the pairing with better higher frequency resolution or that over the optical pathway, the Bryston’s processing was better as a whole. Playing the Isley Brothers song, “People of Today”, the BDA-1 provided a much more musical experience then the Benchmark did, even evoking some head bobbing. That is to say that the DAC1 USB sounded fantastic as well, it is just that the combination of the Bryston’s newfound clarity meshed with its already large sound stage, made for a more pleasing experience.
The cable switch also improved on Bryston’s imaging, making for much sharper and more defined reproductions. This was a noticeable difference over the Benchmark. Via the BDA-1, on Henry Fiol’s Fe, Esperanza y Caridad, the background vocals in the song ”Ven y Baila mi Son” were distinct and clearly separated in space from your left to slightly right of center, and when played through the DAC1 USB, the same separate voices merged into a group, and the space narrowed to a range slightly to left and right of center. We played a few other songs with similar results. On Heat Miser’s Mic City Sons, “Rest My Head Against the Wall”, the Benchmark had a very pleasant range with all of the instruments sounding as unenthusiastically energetic as I assume Elliot Smith had wanted them to be. But when played through the Bryston, each of those instruments took its place within the soundstage, filling the room, and essentially making the whole experience more lifelike.
Given this large gain in performance, I had to reconsider my decision made 30 minutes earlier. If I had only the option of USB, I would have gone with the Benchmark without much of a thought. It has a wonderful, clear, and balanced sound, that is sharp without being harsh or hard to listen to. It, in fact, was a pleasure to listen to. It is a unit that is worth every cent. But, since the use of an optical cable is an option for me, I ultimately chose the Bryston. The gains by using an optical cable were, in our opinion’s, game changing. Its’ soundstage was wide and spacious, its’ ability for separation and definition was amazing, its’ control and authority was impressive, and its’ sound, for lack of a better phrase, makes you want to dance to the music; all making the Bryston BDA-1 an easy choice as my DAC.
Wes
Wes,
Thank you very much for the detailed and comprehensive report, which as far as I know the only comparative review of those two products as of today.
Benchmark claim that they have one of the best or the best USB audio implementations in the market today and after my search I do not think their claim is marketing hype, which your report confirms to me as well. However, I was surprised to know that the improvement offered by their implementation is not limited to the USB output of a MS Windows system where apparently forcing USB into 24 bit mode allows the signal to escape the deteriorating effect of Windows digital volume control and mixers. This is something which otherwise would have needed ASIO drivers to achieve, whereas the Benchmark DAC does not need any special dirvers. They just read the USB documentation carefully :-)
Before making this post seeking advice, I had thought a few times about just going ahead and ordering the Benchmark DAC, particulalry that the price was a strong motivator. What stopped me everytime was my feeling that the reviews of the Benchmark seemed to stop in the great sound / fabulous value territory but did not inch into the wow end of the scale. That made me feel I would be missing something with the Benchmark, though I did not know what it would be. It is basically that "make you want to dance to the music" experience as you put it very well that I am after. And when it comes with the other qualities your described above that is the real treat. Your description reminds me of my first experice with a hifi system I mentioned above where the music did not just sound good but was moving as well. And after sitting in front of a beyond-my-reach system with a price tag close to USD 100k(without cables) and with a great sound that failed to move me, I became a bit careful. I also do not like entering a cycle of dissatisfaction and quick equipment upgrades.
Had the Bryston DAC included a volume control or had my discussion with the company about its ability to feed an amp directly through a passive volume control been more conclusive, it would probably have been at the top of my list, especially that it is available locally where I live. Thanks again for your informative post. Going back to my original question about what I would lose by picking the Benchmark over the Bryston, I think I now have an idea.
Thanks for that comprehensive report. It goes to show that evaluating products requires putting them through their paces in a variety of configurations and associated components.
Hi Robert. You should check this out. go to YouTube....AudiogoN @ CES 2009: CES Cary to Excite computer audio. I've got one on my want list . enjoy....jackson
What is the price of the Berkeley Alpha DAC?
Thanks.
$5000
I use the Benchmark USB/Pre with Dynaudio MC15 active speakers and a sub 250MC for my desk top system. The thing is this packs incredible functionality, very good quality all in a manageable package both price and size wise...hooked uo to Mac. Note preamp is in the Benchmark and using active speakers eliminate the need for two boxes, Plus the Benchmark has a very good headphone amp for those night sessions while on line, and I use the AKG701s. Not my main gear, but really can't ask more for its purposes.
Thank you for your feedback on the Benchmark DAC. By the way, how do you find the AKG 701. I have been considering buying one. The opinions in the reviews I read vary considerably from saying it one of the most engaging headphones available to saying it is too analytical at the expense of being lacking in emotion.
Anyone seeking a high quality DAC, who also happens to have a Mac computer (required to set these up), might want to look into a Metric Halo ULN-2.
While designed primarily for making recordings, not simply listening to them (a superb pair of mic pres are included as is complete mixing and monitoring software, along with a wonderful A-D converter), when set up to operate as a standalone D-A, I have not heard its equal (much less its better) at less than triple its ~$1700 price. (It is a FireWire interface, not USB, which to my mind, is not suitable for the highest quality audio.)
With superb analog stages and top notch integrated clocking, I'm surprised there isn't more talk in audiophile circles about this amazing device. I know many of my engineering colleagues sing its praises -- deservedly so.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Thanks for the tip on the Metric Halo. I had not heard of it. We're working on a survey of USB DACs, and this unit might fit in.
Hi Robert,
Note the ULN-2 is a FireWire interface. It does not support USB.
If The Absolute Sound is doing a survey of USB DACs, I hope the article will include a caveat regarding the limitations of USB with regard to transmission of the highest quality digital audio signals. USB must poll the CPU and was really designed as a cheap, efficient means of connecting a mouse and keyboard. This is very different from FireWire, which was designed to stream audio and video and is free of the necessity to poll the CPU, acting more as a peer than a "slave".
Do try to get a listen to a ULN-2 if you can. Metric Halo is a young company and I'm confident they are going in exactly the right direction to advance the state of the audio art. By the way, their SpectraFoo analysis software is unparalleled in my experience.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
We may be talking about the same thing here, or maybe not, but I think you're actually describing a limitation of USB as it is implemented by the vast majority of USB audio devices. Most USB audio devices use USB in its usual synchronous mode; that is, the clocking of digtial data is controlled first of all by the host computer. This obviously puts a burden on the client device to compensate for any clocking errors (jitter) in the data transmission.
However, there is a different, asynchronous mode in which USB can be used, wherein the client requests data only when it wants it. This is very similar to the Firewire protocol, or TCP/IP over Ethernet/WiFi. The client is thus in complete control of its own data clock - much like the D/A section of a top-notch integrated CD player. I suspect you'll see more devices start to take advantage of the asynchronous mode with USB, especially as Apple seems to be withdrawing Firewire as a standard feature on many of their offerings, and I see no technical reason to believe in the inherent superiority of any of these asynchronous protocols over the others. On the other hand, the USB asynchronous protocol is tricky enough to implement that, AFAIK, only Wavelength Audio and Ayre (via Wavelength license) currently claim to use it.
The Ayre white paper I mentioned above addresses these USB issues:
http://www.ayre.com/PDF/Ayre_USB_DAC_White_Paper.pdf
Hi ScottB,
Thank you for the interesting link.
One comment: With regard to FireWire, the paper says:
"Unfortunately very few (if any) companies are capable of creating both a state-of-the-art D/A converter and state-of-the-art computer software that is required."
This is exactly what Metric Halo does. Further, the ULN-2 sells for appreciably less than the Wavelength or the Ayre and comes with some pretty amazing software in the bargain (which includes the best recorder I've ever heard, regardless of price or format and a full monitor controller so it can be used without a preamp)--and also happens to include a pair of superb mic preamps and a great A-D converter.
The other thing the paper mentions is 24/96 capability. This the ULN-2 has had for years. And I believe Metric Halo is the OEM for (more expensive) FireWire interfaces sold by Sonic Studio. (Their interfaces share many obvious commonalities.) The Sonic boxes will do 24/192. Having used one of these for some of my work, I must say this is the first time I've heard 24/192 show its true promise. For the first time in my experience, the remaining reservations about digital I've had for years, where analog did some things better, have evaporated.
But that's a Mac only solution (which doesn't matter to me since I use a Mac for all my audio work). Hopefully, this "new" USB approach will trickle down to less expensive gear in time, so that folks without Macs (or FireWire) can enjoy the sonic benefits.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Thanks Barry,
I checked out the Metric Halo site, and it does indeed look like a relative bargain even on just a feature/dollar basis. I'd be tempted to pick one up to use with my older Mac laptop, if only there was decent library management software for Macs (iTunes is much too limiting in a number of important ways for me). But others who may not be as fussy about the SW should check this out.
I'm personally using a Weiss AFI1 firewire interface (pro-audio 8 channel I/O) with J River Media Center connected to a fanless Windows PC. It currently feeds my Meridian 861 surround processor, but will shortly connect to a Berkeley AlphaDAC. I like to separate the digital interface from the A/D converter, for future update flexibility, but it does make things a great deal more expensive!
Well, I've made my decision on this same topic, and ordered a Berkeley AlphaDAC. Three things swayed the decision:
- I'm an engineer by training, and a CTO by profession, and I put great store in engineering know-how and experience. Arguably, the Berkeley team has as impressive an engineering track record as any in the industry.
- The AlphaDAC has all the switching and volume control I need to serve as my system control center (aka preamp), thus taking out one more component and saving considerable money in the bargain.
- The rave reviews appearing everywhere, and especially that by RH, provide strong confirmation that the AlphaDAC is a very good sounding DAC in absolute terms, and a tremendous value in context. Thanks, RH.
Great times to be an audiophile and music lover.
Hi ScottB,
The AlphaDAC looks pretty good. I look forward to auditioning it.
With regard to iTunes limitations, have you heard of Amarra? It allows 24/192 while using iTunes as the "database". It uses hardware OEM'd from Metric Halo.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi ScottB,
The AlphaDAC looks pretty good. I look forward to auditioning it.
With regard to iTunes limitations, have you heard of Amarra? It allows 24/192 while using iTunes as the "database". It uses hardware OEM'd from Metric Halo.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi Barry,
The Amarra has been touted for quite some time yet, but as far as I know, is not yet released. My biggest issue with iTunes is its very limited database and browsing tools. I have about 1500 CDs ripped, about half classical and the rest an eclectic collection of Blues, Jazz, Pop, Rock, and Soundtracks. J River allows me to define my own database fields (aka Tags) like Conductor, Work name, Work type, Instrument, Era, Style, etc, and then define custom browsing views that use those tags. This makes it very easy and rewarding to surf my library. With just the basic Artist, Album, Song, Genre tags in iTunes, my library is an incoherent mess.
I also think any serious music server software has to support all of the major lossless formats - FLAC, Apple Lossless, Windows Media Lossless, and WavPack, as lossless downloads become more widely available in those formats. iTunes only supports (nat) Apple Lossless.
I'll be interested to see Amarra.
Amnarra's biggest benefit might be it's ability to take iTunes and allow for automatic resoluion changes. Today we have to go into the OS's audio panels to do that. Amarra's downside, IMO, is that it currently is being marketed as an integrated solution; i.e you have to buy it as hardware/software (meaning the model 305 DAC, etc.). I'm sure, economics being what they are, that Sonic will figure out they can sell a boatload of the software to iTunes/iTouch-iphone audiophiles.
Ted
Congrats.I think I will be making the same decision in the coming few weeks as well. I am an Engineer by training too though I have changed career a few years ago. I see we share several of the selection criteria. I add to your criteria that I hope the Berkeley DAC, being so close to the highest end of digital playback, will be a product I can be content with for several years. I believe that high res downloads are the future of hifi, at least as far as the digital medium is concerned. I am currently working on the specs and components of a desktop PC to use as a playback center (currently my personal computer is a laptop). I have found the firewire interface I have been considering to be too expensive at 70% of the price of the Alpha DAC. When someday somebody makes a proper network audio interface, the PC can be used for other uses if it is no longer needed as a playback center. Enjoy your new DAC and please pass by the forums share your impressions.
Hi Hesham,
I don't understand. You are planning on the Berkeley DAC but reject the Firewire interface you have been considering (which one?) as too expensive because it costs 70% the price of the Berkeley? Are you saying the less expensive item is too expensive but the one costing nearly half again as much is not?
If you have a Mac and are considering the Berkeley, I suggest checking out a Sonic Studio 300 series box, perhaps the 304. I am very curious to know how these stack up against each other. Actually, I know the Sonic box is among the very best I've heard, making some more expensive devices sound like the designers need to go back to the drawing board. I'm curious to know if the Berkeley will run with this pack.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Barry,
I think Hesham is referring to the Weiss Firewire Vesta, a purely digital interface for outputting low-jitter digital via Firewire interface (the AlphaDAC has no Firewire or USB connections). It is very expensive for what it does, though supposedly very good. The Berkeley Audio people recommend the Lynx Studio L22 PCI card for digital output with PC or Mac (about $750).
The Weiss professional line has a less expensive Firewire interface, the AFI1, which does multi-channel digital I/O with supposedly very low jitter as well. I'm using this to feed the multi-channel digital input on my Meridian 861 in my surround system, with sonically superb results.
Scott
That is true. I was referring to the Weiss Vesta, which is a firewire interface and not a firewire DAC like Metric Halo. However, I should say that the price I quoted was for direct import form Switzerland (the local distributor was not interested in carrying the product). The price in the US could be less.
I have read a web post quoting an email from Berkeley in which they say that for high res signals like 24/176.4 and 24/192 even with good jitter rejection built in the DAC, it is still important for the incoming signal to have extremely low jitter. I quote from the email written by Michael Ritter from Berkeley Audio Design: "The Alpha DAC design also provides excellent jitter isolation, although to extract all of the information in high resolution signals such as 24-bit 176.4 kHz or 192 kHz recordings, the signal source also needs to have extremely low jitter. That is because input signal jitter components form "side-bands" that inject energy into the signal grounds of the DAC. Even though the Alpha DAC has extremely high input signal isolation the amount of information in a 24-bit 192kHz signal requires microvolt analog accuracy to reproduce and the less jitter "noise" the input signal carries the better."
The Lynx card is recommended for that reason. Again quoting from the same email " We recommend the Lynx Studio Technology AES16 IO card for music servers because it has very good re-clocking and low intrinsic jitter. In our experience if the AES16 is installed in a good hardware platform, like the Zalman TNN 300, an external clock doesn't improve performance. Of course, results may vary with different systems and hardware."
Hi ScottB,
Thanks, I understand.
This actually raises the issue of what might be a bottleneck (from my perspective) in the Berkeley DAC:
I don't know how the Lynx transmits the signal to the DAC but in my experience, FireWire provides a cleaner signal than AES or SPDIF, neither of which (due to the clock being carried along with the audio) is state-of-the-art.
I haven't heard the Berkeley so I can't speak for that particular but in every situation I've heard what I would deem the very best digital audio, Firewire was the means by which is was transmitted. This doesn't mean it is the only way of course. Simply to say that I've been fortunate to hear some truly excellent digital and the best, in every case just happened to use Firewire.
I can understand why they say an external clock does not improve performance. In the best I've heard, the clock is always located *very* close to the DAC chip.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hesham-
I think that the choice is relatively simple. The Berkley Alpha DAC is 2.5x more expensive then the Bryston (at retail ***you can find deals on this unit***) and close to 4x more expensive then the Benchmark. There might be an improvement in the sound with the Berkley when compared to the others, and there might not be, but I highly doubt it would any possible difference would be worth the stiff difference in its cost. To put it in perspective, you could get the Bryston BDA-1, a Parasound Halo A21 amplifier, and the new 24" iMac all for the cost of the Berkley. Or you could get the Benchmark DAC1USB, a set of Linn Majik 109's, a Rega P3 24 with the upgraded power supply, a Bellari Tube Phono Preamp, and a mac mini all for the cost of the Berkley. It is simply not worth it.
-Wes
Wes, I see your point. But first I am not interested in an analog system (for reasons that do not have to do with the quality of analog playback). Since, I am building a main system, I have eliminated the Benchmark as a result of the the impression I am getting from the reviews and comments I have been reading.
I do not believe the iMAC takes PCI cards which means I will be limited to whatever output the DAC can obtain from the USB port, which is CD-res of questionable quality in the case of the BDA-1 and 24/96 in case of the Benchmark. So this eliminates the cheap computer option.
The Parasound A21 is a power amp. How will the volume be controlled by the Bryston? Not only I am not sure that the BDA-1 can feed the amp through a passive volume control without distortion, I have found high-quality passive volume control solutions to be quite expensive. Frankly, I do not want to add a preamp since I just need a volume control and no source switching. I would rather spend the preamp money somewhere else.
I'm interested if Wes has heard the Alpha DAC.
Robert, I have been reading your review of the Spectral system and noticed that you mentioned that Wilson Audio used a pair of DMA-360's in the X-2 speaker development. There is another piece of interesting info. When I sent Berkeley Audio some inquiries about the Alpha DAC, I got to learn that they use the same amplifier as their reference amplifier. Since Spectral are also strict about the cables to be used with their products, I guess that the Alpha DAC - Spectral - X2 / MIT playback chain, in addition to each individual component being superb in its own right, is one of the rare cases of extreme component matching. No wonder you liked that combination so much.
regards,
Hesham
In most post above, I mentioned being curious to know if the Berkeley DAC runs with a converter like the Sonic Studio 304.
A quick check of the Berkeley web site told me the designers are the same folks who did the Pacific Microsonics converters used in many mastering facilities (though Keith Johnson is apparently not part of the Berkeley team). This bodes well as the PM was the best sounding converter I'd ever heard... until I heard the 304. They are most definitely in the same class. To my ears, the 304 beats the PM and costs quite a bit less too.
The Berkeley unit looks very promising.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
The Amarra also looks very interesting. Too bad it runs only on Mac, given the aforementioned lack of advanced music library software for that platform.
To answer Hesham's question, the Berkeley Alpha DAC works well with MIT cables, although MIT cables are not a requirement as they are if you are using a Spectral amplifier.
I'd like to comment on Wes' post in which he writes:
"To put it in perspective, you could get the Bryston BDA-1, a Parasound Halo A21 amplifier, and the new 24" iMac all for the cost of the Berkley. Or you could get the Benchmark DAC1USB, a set of Linn Majik 109's, a Rega P3 24 with the upgraded power supply, a Bellari Tube Phono Preamp, and a mac mini all for the cost of the Berkley. It is simply not worth it."
This is indeed an odd argument. One could also assert that the Benchmark "is simply not worth it" because for the same money one could buy an iPod, a table radio, and a netbook computer. High-end audio is about maximizing sound quality, not seeing how much gear one can accumulate for a given amount of money.
I purchased the Bryston, largely because there is a Bryston dealer in a nearby city. I'm using it with the LYNX card (in a PC computer) connected with the Lynx supplied cable to the AES/EBU input on Bryston, then with balanced cables to the Denon Pre-Amp-Processor. The Denon permits pin changes on balanced inputs, so recordings can be heard in correct polarity. The difference when polarity is corrected is amazing. I have always been able to hear correct polarity from any source, but the difference has often been subtle. Not so in this instance. I suggest anyone with the ability to correct polarity do an A/B comparison: you'll be surprised. (I have no idea why the difference is so great. Perhaps the reason the Lynx board has been universally praised is that the signal it outputs is absolutely in phase, which makes the polarity particularly obvious). Incidentally, the Bryston, at least in my system, produces the best CD sound I've ever heard.
I purchased the Bryston, largely because there is a Bryston dealer in a nearby city. I'm using it with the LYNX card (in a PC computer) connected with the Lynx supplied cable to the AES/EBU input on Bryston, then with balanced cables to the Denon Pre-Amp-Processor. The Denon permits pin changes on balanced inputs, so recordings can be heard in correct polarity. The difference when polarity is corrected is amazing. I have always been able to hear correct polarity from any source, but the difference has often been subtle. Not so in this instance. I suggest anyone with the ability to correct polarity do an A/B comparison: you'll be surprised. (I have no idea why the difference is so great. Perhaps the reason the Lynx board has been universally praised is that the signal it outputs is absolutely in phase, which makes the polarity particularly obvious). Incidentally, the Bryston, at least in my system, produces the best CD sound I've ever heard.
I'm also using the Lynx AES16 card in a PC (to drive the Berkeley DAC). There's universal agreement that the Lynx is the state-of-the-art in output cards.
Post new comment