Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC Series 2 (TAS)
A Great DAC Gets Even Better
November 22nd, 2011 -- by Robert HarleySource: The Absolute Sound
Few products in my experience as a reviewer have offered as much value as the Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC. Although not inexpensive at $4995, the original Alpha DAC (reviewed in Issue 189) was nonetheless competitive with the best DACs available, regardless of price. Moreover, the Alpha DAC was tailor-made for playing high-resolution files because of its ability to accept a wide range of sampling frequencies and word lengths (up to 192kHz/24-bit), its capacity to drive a power amplifier directly, the remote volume control, and its front-panel HDCD indicator. This LED illuminates when playing an HDCD-encoded disc (or Reference Recordings’ HRx file), but only if the data are uncorrupted, providing a sure-fire way of assuring that your music server is “bit transparent.” (If the HDCD LED illuminates, the DAC is receiving a datastream that is bit-for-bit identical to the source.) The release of Berkeley’s Alpha USB interface, which converts a computer’s USB output to AES/EBU (or coax S/PDIF), further increased the Alpha DAC’s appeal (see my review of the Alpha USB in Issue 214).
The Alpha DAC was not only functional and capable; it was also fabulous-sounding on both CD and high-res material. In fact, I’ve had one in my rack since I reviewed the product way back in Issue 189. The Alpha DAC has been at the front end of some of the world’s best preamplifiers, power amplifiers, and loudspeakers, and never have I felt that it was the system’s weak link. Instead, I’ve always thought that the Alpha DAC allowed me to hear these reference-grade components at their finest.
Now Berkeley has released an upgraded version, called the Alpha DAC Series 2. Admirably, the price remains the same despite some of the new parts costing ten times more than the parts they replace. For those of you who choose a black front panel, the price has actually dropped from $5095 to $4995 (there is no longer a $100 premium for the black cosmetics). Units that were shipped from Berkeley after June, 2011 can be upgraded to Series 2 for $350 plus shipping. Units made before that date cannot be upgraded. The Series 2 looks and operates identically to the original; the difference is purely in parts and the circuit refinements Berkeley discovered in the three years since the original’s launch. These include new clocking circuits and increased isolation between the digital and analog sections.
In playback, the Series 2 sounds very much like the original, with tremendous resolution of low-level detail, great transparency, freedom from timbral grain, a treble that is simultaneously smooth and resolving, and absolutely stunning dynamics. The Series 2, however, is significantly better in several key areas, most notably transparency, soundstaging, timbral liquidity, ease, refinement, and resolution.
The Series 2 exhibits a considerably more open and transparent presentation, with a greater sense of air surrounding images in the soundstage. The overall spatial perspective is slightly laid-back compared with the original DAC, perhaps the result of greater bloom around images and increased soundstage depth. Instrumental and vocal images sound less dry and closed-in, and their decays seem to hang in space longer. The impression of precisely defined instruments existing in three-dimensional space is significantly improved in the Series 2.
In addition, timbres through the Series 2 are smoother, more liquid, and refined. By contrast, the original DAC sounds a bit hard. Though the Series 2, massed strings are noticeably richer and more velvety in texture, with a more organic quality. The flugelhorn on a jazz quintet album I engineered has a purity and ease that are extremely lifelike. This increased bloom and timbral liquidity combines to produce a greater sense of relaxation and involvement.
The treble is equally improved, with more finely filigreed resolution and greater refinement to go along with smoother textures. The top end is more “delicate,” not in the sense of greater fragility or less energy, but rather in its greatly increased finesse. Treble textures are finer and more intricate, which gives the entire presentation a more sophisticated and nuanced character.
The Series 2 presents more information, but that information is, as noted, presented with increased ease. That is, the additional resolution doesn’t tilt the overall sound toward the analytical, but rather toward the subtle and refined. This greater resolution conveys a heightened impression of the mechanism by which an instrument creates sound, fostering a greater sense of realism. For example, on drummer Joe Morello’s Morello Standard Time, a rim shot that sounded like a transient event on the original DAC is more clearly defined by the Series 2 as a drum stick impacting the snare drum’s rim. Listen also to how you can hear the rim shot’s decay separate from the rest of the mix—and follow it way down in level. Note that I use this example to illustrate the Series 2’s superior resolving power, not that I listen to such things when enjoying music. But it’s these kinds of sonic characteristics that you don’t notice overtly which contribute to realism and listener involvement.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
Rob,
The more I delve into computer audio the more intrigued I am.
My initial belief, which has ultimately been proven wrong, was that there was no difference in computer players. While I find the UI of Amarra to be basically, terrible, on my system, it outshines PM and Audirvana Plus, so I am willing to put up with it. This after using PM for 6 months, never thinking the player could or would make such a difference. I have never used a PC player like JR River, so I have no comment.
First, when reviewing the Berkeley, did you use a transport, computer/player or server or a combination of the three and if so can you elaborate.
I would also be interested to hear how the Berkeley handles HDCD after ripping from an HDCD disc, assuming you played ripped HDCD files. dbPoweramp allows one to rip HDCD discs and "retain the HDCD data", but since I use Audio Research's DAC 8 it is a moot point for me. Just curious if you had any experience with that.
Lastly, did you do any or all of the review with their Alpha USB
Thanks
Thanks for the comment. I've used the original Alpha DAC with a wide range of music servers and disc transports, but for the comparison with the Series 2 for this review, I used an iMac with the Alpha USB as the source.
I have quite a few HDCD-encoded CDs ripped to the server, and the Alpha DAC gets the most out of these discs. You should really hear the Reference Recordings titles HDCD decoded through the Alpha DAC.
Its a great time to be a digital audiophile! To add to the interesting posts on the fantastic Berkeley DAC, there is the other largely unexplored realms of SRC techniques in software to maximize DAC performance. Using the computer to upsample redbook and apply various filters to compliment the DAC is now a possibility. No longer stuck with hardware, realtime SRC.
It would be great if some comparison testing is done on these highly praised DACs: the Berkeley, Weiss, MSB (and I am probably missing a couple more). They are all receiving rave reviews from the audio press, all represent the state of the art, the Berkeley and the Weiss being roughly at the same price point, whereas the MSB and the big dCS (say) at 3-4x more.
Yes, but its already known in the audio world or press that Berkeley and weiss are at a similar performance level and price. It's also known that dCS is a notch or few notches up because of no financial restrictions. Ultimately its 1st how much you can afford, 2nd in what kind of a system you will use it, 3rd and most important your own taste and ears. Multiple speakers, amps, preamps, DAC's etc. can represent the state of the art.
Sam, I would take exception to the comment regarding dCS "is a notch or few notches up" unless that comment is restricted to price alone.
The more I delve into this crazy computer audiophile world, the more of a disconnect I see between price and performance and just how dependent DACs are upon the source fed them. Having now been playing around with many, many different sources, my own DAC of preference, namely the DAC8, sounds incredibly different depending upon what I am feeding it. Only through some of the blogs on another site, more attuned to computer music did I start taking on "the journey".
No ifs ands or buts, the DAC8 sounds different when using Amarra vs. Pure Music or AudirvanaPlus on a MacMini compared to a Transport compared to Chris Connaker's awesome recommendation for a C.A.P.S. 2.0 with J River. Now of course we have a multitude of dedicated servers out there, least of which is the new supposedly fabulous Aurender for 7k as well as Sonore and Auraliti.
I think your last comments hit the nail on the head, namely, taste and synergy in one's system.
I am using an all Audio Research system, including their REF5 and their new fabulous REF250 monoblocks and believe I have found the right combination. However, as my last foray which brought me ultimately to the C.A.P.S. 2.0 setup taught me, the ultimate performance of a DAC is very very dependent upon the source. For the DAC8, I would have to place MacMini and their players at the bottom, followed by a transport and C.A.P.S. 2.0 at the top. Is it driver dependent? Is the C.A.P.S. 2.0 much better at eliminating noise? I am not sure, but these variations bring pause when comparing DACs. We are (as my little example illustrates) witnessing many variables that have huge effects on the output and we are just at the beginning.
Priaptor,
I agree with u for the most part. But this u might not like: at least to me after a certain level price or performance and in the case here state of the art digital it becomes really difficult to tell which one is the winner. Surely there r differences, but it would be hard to to call an absolute winner between Berkeley, Weiss and Debussy. On the other hand I agree with you 100% that system synergy is the key. And a lot of thi info can be gathered by the manufacturers. For example in ur case Nola speakers do a lot of design and testing with ARC gear, it's tried and tested and is a great match. Berkeley has done extensive tests with alpha DAC+ alpha USB+ iMac + puremusic. And I believe this combo will work best together and may not work best if intermixed with other combinations. I also agree with u 110% on the source. After reading reviews of wadia 170 I transport I bought one. And the results were shocking. I tested the original Berkeley alpha DAC with wadia 170 I transport vs. Oppo BDP83 player as a transport and the difference was night and day. The oppo was far superior than the wadia. Contrary to the rave reviews of wadia. I have the alpha USB on order once that comes in that should be an interesting comparison. Bottom line: the CORRECT COMBINATION of things in my limited experience makes huge differences in different set ups.
Sam,
Actually, I agree with you 100%. That was my point. I do not think, unless you have a certain love for the sonic signature of dCS that it is a winner compared to the Berkeley. Of the three you mention, dCS, Weiss and Berkeley, the Berkeley by the claims of most, would get my nod as the DAC I would want of those the Berkeley being "cheaper" than the dCS.
The illustration I used with the DAC8 was just to show how much the sonic signature changes based on source, in just this one illustration. I am assuming that you are indeed correct an that Berkeley has done most of its testing with mac. Same with Weiss. I you play around with Amarra, Pure Music and Audirvana, you will see how much different Amarra is than the latter two.
There are also a few really stellar DACs that are only on some people's radar screen such as the Lampizator an all tube DAC that comes in multiple different levels.
My real issue is that there are so many variables in digital, not just in DACs but in sources and virtually impossible to get a handle on all of them, that I see some frustration in the near term trying to determine not just "the best" as TAS loves to do, but more importantly, determining the caveats that go along with each DAC such as source (MAC, PC or LINUX), player (Amarra, Pure Music, JRiver, JPlay, etc), usability, DSD if it ever catches on, etc. Meanwhile we can enjoy the ride and enjoy the Berkeley.
Priaptor,
That you notice a DAC responds to changes in the sources feeding it simply means that the DAC is accurate and that it's the sources which are the problem, not the DAC per se. A DAC which seems not to produce any sonic change when sources are changed willy nilly suggests insensitivity to source - a Muzak type of DAC I suppose.
I run an Alpha DAC (first version) and a MF M1DAC, Bryston BDP-1 and MF M1CDT and depending on input type, XLR or CoAx, significant changes can be noticed in the sound. (Both systems drive a Focal Bird system, to be replaced, once it arrives, with Mini Maggies, Sanders Magtech amp, Accuphase 2110 control center). I don't bother listening to CD's via a CD player anymore since copying the AIFF file to a hard drive and playing that through the Bryston BDP-1 is as good as it can get. (PS it gets better if you play hi-res files from the various download retail sites like Linn, Naim or buy RR recordings and copy them to the HDD).
I also run a Macmini and have a lot of downloaded music in the Apple format via Itunes (Mp4a) and direct that source via the MF Vlink to the coax input of the Focal Bird system to listen and watch movies on the computer monitor. I don't listen to music via Itunes, however. So soundwise, and I have paid copies of Amarra, PureMusic etc, I don't bother with Itunes at all - all the original files, whether ripped or downloaded, are put onto an external drive and played via the Bryston.
Once the new gear arrives, decisions have to be made and obviously the Bryston/Alpha DAC into the balanced inputs on the Accuphase will be the primary sound source. Tuner using Digital broadcasting will be via the Alpha or the DAC-30 option for the Accuphase, depending on what I hear when I compare the Alpha with the Accuphase DAC-30 option. Final source is the Macmini as a movie server and that's probably going to be TOSLink or Coax - depends on the previous tests - but movies are not a priority as sonically they are contrived so the goals of TAS are irrelevant.
Louis Hissink
I've got Bel Canto's DAC3.5VB that sounds PERFECT. Clean, musical, detailed with excellent bass. With its VBS1 power supply, it'd be hard to beat.
I'd like to know if a chip that sports 192KHz / 32 bit such as the Sabre really means it is 'superior' than everyone else's 192 / 24.
In other words, what makes 32 bit better than 24bit ?
BR,
Why do all of you guys feel what you own needs to be the best. Trust me, it is taste and what is "PERFECT" to you or what you think is "hard to beat" others have a different opinion-in fact there are many many who have different opinions. Yes the Bel Canto is a great DAC enjoy it. I can guarantee you with 100% certainty is is not "PERFECT"
Sir, obviously when I wrote 'hard to beat' and 'perfect', I meant for my taste, since I was the one hearing it and also writing this comment...LOL
Other duhh-obvious thing you wrote is that 'others have different opinions'...frankly. You also can 'guarantee' NOTHING, much less 'with 100% certainty'.
Gee, what a waste of atoms you are.
You are ust another I need to justify and rationalize I I have "The Best" TAS reader hoping Harley tells you how great your DAC is. Talk about a waste
This was a review about The BADA 2 not the Bel Canto so who asked for a qualification from you?
I don't think you can hear those extra bits directly, to bring 24-bit dither up to the region of audibility in even a super-quiet room you'd have to turn the volume up so far you'd destroy your ears. However, 24-bit DAC's don't have perfectly linearity in the lowest bits, and the precision required to make a monotonic 32-bit DAC would guarantee improved precision at higher levels that might be audible, so that's one possible mechanism. Also, if the DAC is delta-sigma, it could have a higher sampling frequency-bit depth product, which could reduce artifacts. Then too, new designs could be superior in other technical aspects that have nothing to do with their bit depth. I've heard reports that 32-bit DAC's do sound better, though I'm not sure how reliable they are.
The ones using izotope digital engine sound the best. These are Amarra and Fidelia. There may be others.
As for DACs, I'd really be interested in Harley comparing the Berkeley with its USB v. the Wyred4Sound DAC-2 with no USB converter needed.
Surprises await.
Gentlemen,
Is there anyone who could say a few words about a Linn Klimax DS? I've been reading most of the posts on DACs on AVguide and other forums, but I'm always missing a comparison between all the brands mentioned in this thread and Linn. On this site of the ocean a Linn Klimax DS is seen as one of the top contenders for best streamer (or convertor for that matter). But I'm just so curious what you think in the states of this product compared to for example a Berkeley 2.
Kind regards, Arjan
I'm a long-time TAS reader and a 1st-time poster on this forum. Over the years, I've been fortunate to have either auditioned or lived with some of the pieces that RLH has reviewed. Perhaps by sheer coincidence, I always agreed with his findings. One of these was the Levinson 360S DAC which was (and still is) hands down most enjoyable piece of audio gear I have ever heard and/or owned. It was magnificent and always brought the music in a most precise & engaging way. Unfortunately, I had to part with it a few years back (sigh). The good news is I am now in the market for a DAC again and have been reading/learning all about the next-gen DAC's including the Alpha DAC. I am very curious to know what Mr. Harley (or any other person's with intimate knowledge of both DAC's) might have to say about how the Alpha DAC would compare sonically to the "old" 360S?
Thanks!!
...had the Levinson since new but the Berkeley ALPHA DAC is simply better...I suspect you'd be delighted in the scale of improvement.
Priaptor,
If u test the alpha DAC in ur system do let us know of ur results. It would be interesting to know how the alpha DAC sounds going through ur arc ref 5 preamp verses directly into your arc ref 250 power amp. I have a feeling that some how the ref 5 is a critical component in any ARC system, but Roberts findings have consistently shown better results without a preamp. I would not be surprised if u find it different.
If there is no conflict between the impedances between DAC and preamp, going direct to amp will ALWAYS be superior vs. going through a preamp. N o preamp and no cable is better than any preamp and any cable.
agb,
Can you give me the proof on that one?? Another myth, easily debunked. Try it both ways, no comparison.
My previous DAC without ANY variance or conflict in impedance, with and without my REF5, was not even close. I bought the REF 5 on the spot,
Gentlemen,
No one any comments on Linn Klimax DS compared to Berkeley?
happy new year to you all
I have listened to the Linn Klimax DS in an all Linn system at my local dealer, and it was amazing! Regrettably, that dealer does not also stock or represent Berkeley Audio, so I am unable to offer a fair comparison. Berkeley does have a dealer in my area, but I haven't been able to stop by for a listen, though I intend to. The comparison would not be the best, however, given that the rest of the system, including the rooms, will be different.
I would be thrilled to read of a comparison using the same equipment in the same room.
No, I can't give you proof for anything. Can you? Perhaps I should give you proof that God exists? Or He doesn't?
Enjoy your ARC, they have made many great products. But there's no way in hell, providing your DAC has the appropriate voltage/output stage and impedances to drive an amp properly, that adding more gain stages and extra wires can IMPROVE the integrity of the signal. Or the sound.
I've tried this experiment many times, in the past with professional reviewers and audio gear manufacturers present. Never once was the addition of more amplification between two amplifiers (one, let's say, the output stage of a DAC or preamp and the other, the power amp) improved the sound. There is no logical or scientific reason that it should. But people with not much to do will often buy and add equipment into their systems and once wedded to the expenditure, convince themselves that what they have is better. Reminds me of the Emperor's Clothes.
But if you like the added distortion (there is ALWAYS added distortion, always), I wish you well, and a Happy New Year.
You have no clue. You findings are of course baseless, because you have never heard the difference. But you, who claim everything above 2K for DAC is a ripoff know all.
Another class envy stalwart.
Priaptor. You seem to have a problem with everyone. Grow up.
There are, contrary to your belief system that you are intent on defending, other brands than ARC, just as good and even better. A $2000 DAC, higher priced or lower, has nothing to do with class envy. My comment has to do with my three decades of experience in the industry. You comment has to do with your ego and some perceived slight that you need to discuss with a professional.
I use PASS audio and Nordost wires. Not exactly reason for class envy, eh? Moreover, it is you, and not this writer, who doesn't know what he's talking about. A classic case of projection if readers follow Priaptor's earlier comments here and elsewhere. If Priaptor doesn't understand the nature of projection in psychology, I suggest he look into it. And then make another attempt at growing up.
Do tell Priaptor, what is it in your character that makes you want to attack a comment that was not directed at you, but was additional commentary to someone else's? Your words prior had NOTHING to do with my comment. Your knee-jerk reflex and immense insecurity maybe something.
And how do you know what I have heard, or not heard? Do you know me? I doubt it. No, Priaptor, you have no idea what I heard, own, or what I prefer. Which is, to think about it, none of your business.
I have a suggestion Priaptor. Why not take your act somewhere where it's appreciated? Not in a friendly forum where people try to gain and exchange knowledge intelligently.
Sorry pal, it is you who is making the dogmatic statements not me.
You are the one making blanket statements as to what is better and unequivocally equating bit rates and other nonsense with SQ and making denigrating comments regarding price and in fact, are in your most recent posts making dogmatic statements about ARC with NO reference or justification other than to make some obtuse point.
Personally, I don't really give a damn what you think, enjoy your system. That is all that is important, no?
Lastly, PUTZ, if it is none of my business, stop posting your opinions and absurd dogmatic commentary. Another audiophile "professional".
I think you're on the right track. There are many reasons a 32 bit DAC should sound better than a 24 bit. What I find surprising is that many new very high cost DACs use older 24 bit chips. Rather amusing is the cost of some of these audio sculptures that really don't sound better than many others costing 10%...
Anyone familiar with DAC technology and power supply technology understands that one can build a state-of-the-art (today's SOTA that is) DAC with good quality parts for $1000-2000.
I won't comment on the margins certain manufacturers choose to run their business selling maybe 20-300 units of a $5000 DAC, or less for a $10,000 DAC. It is a business and marketing choice. We also see brands that have good value WITH good engineering that provide a final sound quality that easily competes with the caviar brands.
And here I'm not speaking about green-behind-the-ears engineers, but people who were building digital from day one. For example, the fellows at SCHIIT Audio and Wyred4Sound, the later had designed and built the circuits for a number of major brands, the former the original top DAC, Theta's.
So, as one who has been in the game, so to speak, I can say it is a game. On one side of the table sit the pros. The other side, amateurs. The amateurs are quickly parted from the contents of their wallets.
If these statements seem cynical, so be it. Nevertheless, they are accurate and provable.
DAC technology is rapidly changing, most of the features that impact the sound are known, a few are harder to address and it is where some additional funds are spent to upgrade a design. Many of the components, such as DAC and USB chips, clocks, are directly sourced off the shelf parts, and the manufacturers of these chips provide exacting and specific instructions for their application, including intput/output voltages, gain, thermal tolerances, etc. These chips MUST be used in accordance with the instructions from the chip's manufacturer - and in no other way. They simply won't work if improperly used.
Therefore, there are only so many variations possible, and much of the design work centers around the power supply/isolation of the inputs and dac chips from the rest; the output/line amp in some DACs. And of course, how pretty one makes the casing for the product.
Personally I wouldn't touch a DAC costing above $1500-2000. It'll become obsolete next month. And definitely I would only buy the upper range, above $1000 that is, that provides 32-bit dac chips... There IS, a reason for going 32 bit, and only the cheaper variety, for obvious reasons, can excuse themselves for 24 bit architecture.
Any DAC selling for over that price limit I quoted has no reason for being, except the aforementioned, to part the customer from the contents of his wallet for a product that is, today, obsolete.
You make it sound very simple...but based on just a dollar limit? I doubt that this rule can be applied universally. Yes there are people doing extremely greedy markups for something that doesn't justify the performance. But I don't think that can be said of all companies charging over $1500-2000. Everything Cars, computers, software, audio, is essentially a previous technology even that the time its bought because humans are always in the proces of making something newer and better. Essentially everything we buy IS obsolete when we buy it...thats just the nature of every thing in life. I believe that there are true engineers and designers who are very very skillfull and when they bring a product out a fair amount of markup is justified. And since this is a Berkeley Audio Design blog I doubt that what they are charging is greedy given the competition; were they charging $60,000 for the series 2 DAC, or if My honda Civic dealar asked me $50,000 for it...then Id be worried. And I would agree that that type of behavior is suspicious. The lower end....yes may be a DAC can be made amazingly at $1500 to $2000 and if it can all that better. I disagree with the comment though that any thing OVER $2000 is classified as "parting the customer from the contents of his wallet".
I just used an arbitrary number Sam - but not very arbitrary. One can do an analysis of the parts cost, add in R&D and marketing, subtract from the price to arrive at the margin - more or less.
If you take a $20,000 DAC and find that the parts cost (minus fancy chassis) is $800, you might have to justify the price. But no one asks. So where are we consumers and reviewers at this stage to determine or assert the product's value or reason for being?
A general calculation in the electronics business is 20% for parts . This formula is not set in stone because of many other factors impacting price...location of manufacture, shipping and insurance costs, regulations, taxes, etc. If you looked around at a variety of products, you'll find a variety of formulas insofar as parts and production costs are concerned. One product can cost (arbitrary here) $1000, another $3000, both have more or less the same parts cost.
This is just how it is and any pro in the business understands it.
For example, take engineering and R&D costs. One engineer has a great deal of knowledge under his belt and can spew out successful and good sounding circuit designs, one after another, within a short time frame. Another will struggle with the most basic engineering problems for months, take a long time building a single prototype, and then fail many times before arriving at some sort of success for a single product. Yet time is money, and the latter man will charge up for his wasting his own time designing an expensive product with possibly only adequate performance.
In this case that manufacturer may spend a lot of money on a fancy chassis to make up for merely mediocre performance and charge accordingly. This scenario is hypothetical, as most expensive products are well-engineered and sound good. But this is not always the case and many expensive products become figuratively boat anchors in a few years.
What I referred to in my earlier comment are about products not priced excessively that happen to be as good as some of the best. Or close enough for differences of opinion to exist. Which in fact makes the problem more real.
Because digital technology is advancing at a rapid pace, it just makes sense to refrain from obsessive purchases of hyper expensive products that do not prove themselves having a distinct sonic/performance advantage that most knowledgeable people can agree on.
In other words, a $15,000 DAC has to prove itself significantly superior sonically to one costing let's say, $1500, to merit industry-wide respect, not just the ahhhs from naive buyers because of its exorbitant price and gorgeous looks.
Pretty Woman Walking Down the Street could turn out to be a hooker.