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

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
People mask them with warmth, it smooths out fatiguing artifacts... you know what they say though... 2 wrongs don't make a right. :)

No, they certainly do not. The problem of course is that you are generating a different set of distortions that do not really mask the previous set of annoying ones. Now you have two sets of artifacts and true resolution drops even further while still being vaguely annoying. This is why I am not a big advocate of "synergy" in hifi systems unless you get really lucky.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,646
13,683
2,710
London
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.

I have heard the Phasure with BD horns twice. Phasure designer and BD designer jointly make the dac + horn system, which is active, but you have the option to connect your amps. The dac has a built in VC. Henk also uses it for his Grands and runs his amps on the back of that. And so does Stanley who owns the Scinnies (his Scinnie set up, btw, I did not like).

Impossible to compare in that system, but the software interface is the biggest pain.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
Completely agree. Thank you and jkeny for bringing fatigue back into the discussion. I don't know what causes it, but I sure can hear it with certain components and in certain systems, sometimes quite quickly, and other times, it takes longer term listening. I try to avoid it at all costs because it prevents long term satisfaction, at least to me.

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

This goes back to my initial assertions. I have, in the past, found DCS DACs fatiguing to listen too and feel that they generated "false" resolution and never had a natural feel to the sound. This is why the skeptical view on the newer DCS products, which I dutifully admitted that I had not heard. Nor have I heard the Berkeley DACs; however, Al just suggested that they have an emphasized upper mid and accenuated "sibilance" and if that is true then they are IMO antithetical to natural sound. They would almost certainly fatigue me in extended listening if true.

As to loudness...I find that the better the system is the quieter one can listen to it and still get "everything". All systems fall apart as some low volume but the best ones hang on longer before collapsing to "background" music. I normally have to listen at quite low levels for domestic reasons so I am sensitive to this point I guess. Still, my horns will rock with the best of them without effort. Is your system significantly different from before when you listened at lower levels?

The other issue of course could have been that your previous setup (if it was in fact different) started to turn unpleasant sounding when getting louder due to dynamic limitations in one or more of your pieces of gear. I had this issue once with Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MkII speakers. They were simply dead at low volume and got audibly dynamically limited when playing loud. So, they were ideal for pop/rock played at a middle loud volume with little to no dynamic range on the recording. Then they were neutral and transparent with good bass. Dynamic music like Classical works were a disaster though.

A good (now deceased) friend of mine, Allen Wright from Vacuumstate, had a term he called "Downward Dynamic Range". This was a piece of gears ability to clear resolve very low level sounds in a recording in the presence of much louder sounds. This is a corollary to the being able to hold together as the volume level goes down...they go hand in hand.

I had electrostats for a very long time because they played so well at moderate to low levels and did the DDR thing very well indeed (particularly with top electronics behind). Now I have horns and single driver speakers that can do the same trick with almost as neutral a tonal balance (that kept me away from these speaker types for a long time until I found the ones I have now) and smaller spaces (my electrostats were over 8 feet tall and 2 feet wide.).

I guess in the end, I would not recommend anyone spending a fortune on Digital because good analog is still a lot better and quite good DACs can now be had for < $2K that are arguably as good or nearly as good as a $30K DAC.
 

awsmone

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2014
1,616
514
435
Canberra Australia
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...


Lovely analogy the princess and pea

My own personal experience is if a audiophile points out a fault in your system, it's hard not to hear it, from that moment on...

On top of that different Audiophile's seem to have different make or break priorities

These include

Lack of bass
Lack of air
Treble prominence
Midrange lack of prominence
Midrange warmth
Lack of soundstage
Timing
Flow
Musicality
Coloration
Distortion

Tubey sound

Ss sound
Lack of detail/resolution
Too much resolution

Everything sounds the same
Fatiguing
Not involving
Speed
The make or break criteria are many:-

In answer to the question about less expensive versus expensive DAC

It would be hoped that more of these make or break criteria would be resolved in an expensive DAC, but there still be specific criteria for some people that would not be resolved

In a less expensive DAC, it might be expected that for a number of people their criteria may be met, or necessitating another combination

I am not, not stating that this will be true: In actual practice , but to be hoped for

One of the issues, contrary to this model of business analysis is individual voicing of products, that ticks certain priorities for certain purchasers, these clearly are likely to be more expensive ....
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,801
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
Nor have I heard the Berkeley DACs; however, Al just suggested that they have an emphasized upper mid and accenuated "sibilance" and if that is true then they are IMO antithetical to natural sound.

No, I emphatically did NOT suggest that. You are completely twisting my words. Read again, please.

(As you can imagine from my bolding and CAPS etc, now I am really angry.)
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,646
13,683
2,710
London
No, I emphatically did NOT suggest that. You are completely twisting my words. Read again, please.

(As you can imagine from my bolding and CAPS etc, now I am really angry.)

What do you do, turn in to the Hulk? Or just tweet at 3am?
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,801
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,801
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
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.

Yes, people have reported the same for the Berkeley Reference DAC, even though my overall preference is for the dCS Vivaldi and Rossini (I'd like to hear the Reference 2 upgrade for the Berkeley). I think it must be somehow the ability to extract the right data from a sub-optimal data stream that sets all those DACs apart. It must be great to be able expand your library of great sounding music this way.

EDIT: I suppose you mean particularly DGG recordings from the 80s and early 90s, which often seem to have problems in their digital processing. When the tonal balance of the recording itself is bright, that is another issue, I think. In any case, I have heard a number of more recent DGG recordings or masterings of old material that are outstanding.
 
Last edited:

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
No, I emphatically did NOT suggest that. You are completely twisting my words. Read again, please.

(As you can imagine from my bolding and CAPS etc, now I am really angry.)

Yes, you are right it was you stating Robert Harley had said this about the Yggy and Manishandler had said that is what he didn't like about the Yggy. Then you said that if that was the case for the Yggy then the Berkeley would also be similar because of it's sonic similarity to the Yggy (in your opinion). My apologies for putting words into your mouth.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,801
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
Yes, you are right it was you stating Robert Harley had said this about the Yggy and Manishandler had said that is what he didn't like about the Yggy. Then you said that if that was the case for the Yggy then the Berkeley would also be similar because of it's sonic similarity to the Yggy (in your opinion). My apologies for putting words into your mouth.

Thanks, Brad. Apology accepted.

Yes, I don't hear these problems in my system and neither have I heard it in another system with the Berkeley.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
What do you do, turn in to the Hulk? Or just tweet at 3am?

However, if Robert Harley and Manishandler are right, then i couldn't live with either the Yggy or the Berkeley (assuming you are correct in it's similar sound)
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
Thanks, Brad. Apology accepted.

Yes, I don't hear these problems in my system and neither have I heard it in another system with the Berkeley.

That said, I don't take what Robert Harley says too seriously...
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,801
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
That said, I don't take what Robert Harley says too seriously...

He makes a few observations in his review of the Yggy that I emphatically agree with, and others where I scratch my head.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,807
4,702
2,790
Portugal
That said, I don't take what Robert Harley says too seriously...

He makes a few observations in his review of the Yggy that I emphatically agree with, and others where I scratch my head.

It is the funny part of reviews. It is like horoscope in magazines - no one cares or believes in horoscopes, but if our eyes fall on them we read them. And then we just pick what we like ... :)

As I often say, for me reviews are information and entertainment ... Just for my information, where can we find the system(s) that was (were) used for this article?
 
Last edited:

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,142
495
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.


That sounds good to me! :) Training can mean just being observant to the point the artifacts can be recognized, which could be pointed out or it could be learned with experience. Long term listening is helpful to catch what you don't recognize immediately, the sound of the system will have an effect on the body and mind and this is more apparent with more exposure to the system.

An example, I just put together some class-D amp modules to power woofers and also tried them full-range. Used full-range the system seemed like work to listen to, it wasn't relaxing, and over time you really could feel fatigued when listening to it. The difference between these amps and my normal amps were pretty huge in terms of how the music made you feel.

I think some auditory patterns are learned, such as the ring of your phone, recognizing voices, etc. but I think there's also a hard-wired survival instinct associated with some sounds, and others that are simply foreign. Like the smell of decay/rot, this is hard-wired to smell bad and we're also extremely sensitive to the molecules associated with it... while most other smells are entirely subjective and likes/dislikes are a result of scent memory associated with the smell. So the sounds associated with survival instinct, the sounds that stimulate that part of our brain, will likely raise blood pressure, increased levels of adrenaline and other stress reactions... not exactly what we're looking for from listening to music. Foreign sounds, if it's anything like our other senses, will be interpreted by the brain to be something else, whatever is the closest association stored in memory.


As far as air, I interpret that as separation of images in the soundstage instead of them being all together as one "blob" of sound. In one track by Boards of Canada, "Chromakey Dreamcoat" I think... more and more parts are added side-by-side in the soundstage, I think of air as the ability of the system to keep all these parts separate and distinct from one another. Or Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, the live version of "A Moment So Close" from the album Live at the Quick, the ability to hear individual parts instead of one mass of sound.
 

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,669
10,942
3,515
USA
This goes back to my initial assertions. I have, in the past, found DCS DACs fatiguing to listen too and feel that they generated "false" resolution and never had a natural feel to the sound. This is why the skeptical view on the newer DCS products, which I dutifully admitted that I had not heard. Nor have I heard the Berkeley DACs; however, Al just suggested that they have an emphasized upper mid and accenuated "sibilance" and if that is true then they are IMO antithetical to natural sound. They would almost certainly fatigue me in extended listening if true.

As to loudness...I find that the better the system is the quieter one can listen to it and still get "everything". All systems fall apart as some low volume but the best ones hang on longer before collapsing to "background" music. I normally have to listen at quite low levels for domestic reasons so I am sensitive to this point I guess. Still, my horns will rock with the best of them without effort. Is your system significantly different from before when you listened at lower levels?

The other issue of course could have been that your previous setup (if it was in fact different) started to turn unpleasant sounding when getting louder due to dynamic limitations in one or more of your pieces of gear. I had this issue once with Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MkII speakers. They were simply dead at low volume and got audibly dynamically limited when playing loud. So, they were ideal for pop/rock played at a middle loud volume with little to no dynamic range on the recording. Then they were neutral and transparent with good bass. Dynamic music like Classical works were a disaster though.

A good (now deceased) friend of mine, Allen Wright from Vacuumstate, had a term he called "Downward Dynamic Range". This was a piece of gears ability to clear resolve very low level sounds in a recording in the presence of much louder sounds. This is a corollary to the being able to hold together as the volume level goes down...they go hand in hand.

I had electrostats for a very long time because they played so well at moderate to low levels and did the DDR thing very well indeed (particularly with top electronics behind). Now I have horns and single driver speakers that can do the same trick with almost as neutral a tonal balance (that kept me away from these speaker types for a long time until I found the ones I have now) and smaller spaces (my electrostats were over 8 feet tall and 2 feet wide.).

I guess in the end, I would not recommend anyone spending a fortune on Digital because good analog is still a lot better and quite good DACs can now be had for < $2K that are arguably as good or nearly as good as a $30K DAC.

I have not heard the older dCS DACs, so I have no reference to your comments. I can say that I was always aware of a slight glare/fatigue/distortion, particularly in the higher frequencies, with most digital gear that I had heard in the past (accentuated by some systems with poor rooms) but this sense is greatly diminished or eliminated with some of the latest digital gear that I have heard. As an analog guy, I have noticed this improvement over time in friends' digital gear and at my local dealership. Tube and SS don't seem to matter. It seems to be implementation of the design that is critical rather than typology.

I don't want to get into the details of my particular system in this thread, except to write that my major components remain the same but I have made improvements to the room acoustics and some other minor things which allow me to listen to and enjoy louder volumes than before. My speakers are very inefficient, but I do also listen and enjoy lower volumes when necessary. Details can be read in my system link in my signature.
 

KostasP.

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2016
116
74
135
Melbourne
Reproduced "air’’ perceived as an artefact.

The concept of reproduced air or airiness by a system denotes different connotations to different audiophiles, just like so many other ambiguous terms (tonal saturation, image density, etchiness, white-washed sound, even neutrality and naturalness), for, we do not have definitive, stable, mutually agreed and accepted definitions and metrics.

However, if one has direct familiarity or knowledge of the recorded material, judgement becomes much easier. If a system is indeed feasibly ’’neutral, linear and natural’’, then the perceived air of a recording is part and parcel of the tonal\timbral harmonic content of the recorded music. It can be considered an integral aspect, NOT an artefact, of the spatial information that a good system can presumably reproduce, assuming that the listening room is conducive to good sound and does not interfere adversely with its own non-linearities and other abnormalities.

The space around an instrument, provided that it has been captured by the recording, is not a vacuum nor necessarily an empty silence but an acoustic space of subtle and complex cross-modulating musical information; air is one of these components. Of course, a revealing and trnsparent system implies that it can retrieve this information and that it has a very low noise floor, spectral extension\linearity and transient fidelity, amongst other attributes. It also implies that the sound is leaner and lighter, rather than compacted, more ‘’saturated’’ and thicker, creating the false illusion of weight and density. Once again, familiarity with and knowledge of the natural acoustic properties and sonic propagation of instruments is the only valid criterion.

Very often, some systems\speakers inherently produce a more etched (not to mention white-washed soundstage, much to the admiration of many (usually novice audiophiles). This can be an impressive ‘’hi-fi-ish’’ sound but it is usually (especially if you know the recording well) at the expense of NOT reproducing the complete harmonic content, including the spatial information of all the components – instruments and not only – which are embedded in the soundstage. It is this incompleteness that produces this stark, etched soundstage. Usually, such systems may have a more "lit-up’’ or higher tonal centre, i.e be brighter, precisely because of these reasons, exacerbated even further by inherent spectral\phase peculiarities.

These are aspects of micro-reproduction that I attach a lot of importance and enjoy immensely because, ultimately, they facilitate a holistic, un-compromised immersion in the music. These are pre-requisite elements that bliss and transcendence are created with.

I listen always learning. Cheers, Kostas.
 

KostasP.

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2016
116
74
135
Melbourne
Reproduced "air’’ perceived as an artefact.

The concept of reproduced air or airiness by a system denotes different connotations to different audiophiles, just like so many other ambiguous terms (tonal saturation, image density, etchiness, white-washed sound, even neutrality and naturalness), for, we do not have definitive, stable, mutually agreed and accepted definitions and metrics.

However, if one has direct familiarity or knowledge of the recorded material, judgement becomes much easier. If a system is indeed feasibly ’’neutral, linear and natural’’, then the perceived air of a recording is part and parcel of the tonal\timbral harmonic content of the recorded music. It can be considered an integral aspect, NOT an artefact, of the spatial information that a good system can presumably reproduce, assuming that the listening room is conducive to good sound and does not interfere adversely with its own non-linearities and other abnormalities.

The space around an instrument, provided that it has been captured by the recording, is not a vacuum nor necessarily an empty silence but an acoustic space of subtle and complex cross-modulating musical information; air is one of these components. Of course, a revealing and trnsparent system implies that it can retrieve this information and that it has a very low noise floor, spectral extension\linearity and transient fidelity, amongst other attributes. It also implies that the sound is leaner and lighter, rather than compacted, more ‘’saturated’’ and thicker, creating the false illusion of weight and density. Once again, familiarity with and knowledge of the natural acoustic properties and sonic propagation of instruments is the only valid criterion.

Very often, some systems\speakers inherently produce a more etched (not to mention white-washed soundstage, much to the admiration of many (usually novice audiophiles). This can be an impressive ‘’hi-fi-ish’’ sound but it is usually (especially if you know the recording well) at the expense of NOT reproducing the complete harmonic content, including the spatial information of all the components – instruments and not only – which are embedded in the soundstage. It is this incompleteness that produces this stark, etched soundstage. Usually, such systems may have a more "lit-up’’ or higher tonal centre, i.e be brighter, precisely because of these reasons, exacerbated even further by inherent spectral\phase peculiarities.

These are aspects of micro-reproduction that I attach a lot of importance and enjoy immensely because, ultimately, they facilitate a holistic, un-compromised immersion in the music. These are pre-requisite elements that bliss and transcendence are created with.

I listen always learning. Cheers, Kostas.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
319
565
BiggestLittleCity
This goes back to my initial assertions. I have, in the past, found DCS DACs fatiguing to listen too and feel that they generated "false" resolution and never had a natural feel to the sound. This is why the skeptical view on the newer DCS products, which I dutifully admitted that I had not heard. Nor have I heard the Berkeley DACs; however, Al just suggested that they have an emphasized upper mid and accenuated "sibilance" and if that is true then they are IMO antithetical to natural sound. They would almost certainly fatigue me in extended listening if true.

I guess in the end, I would not recommend anyone spending a fortune on Digital because good analog is still a lot better and quite good DACs can now be had for < $2K that are arguably as good or nearly as good as a $30K DAC.

I find this in breakin on cables,but it goes away in use. The biggist problem with DAC's is that they are very sensitive to noise current through the system. Take the common mode noise away and you have a very natural,clean well defined sound. Upper mid and sibilant problem are a give away to noise in the system. YMMV

My digital setup is about $2500....it's all I'll ever need.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing