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

[amirm]

I find nearly all SS dacs borderline unlistenable after a very short time due to what I hear as artifacts that create a synthetic sound.

Almost all music produced is going through solid state ADC and DACs. How is it that the music was approved by the talent and not so by you?

I listen to my solid state DAC for hours on end. It has no sound of its own. I hear the music as produced. If it is synthetic, it is in the source.

Of course you can add colorations using tubes and if that is what you are after, then sure. Once you get hooked on that, taking it away will seem like a miss. But it doesn't say anything about truthfulness of solid state DACs.

 

[amirm]

Audiophile live is filled with diversity - IMHO we should enjoy it and pick what we prefer. But IMHO there is nothing to be won calling ugly and nasty names to equipment other people like.

It is not diversity that is a problem, it is misguided evaluation that leads to conclusions that cannot be rationalized between listeners. Do the testing properly and opinions will align quite well.

 

[morricab]

Your post just suggests an extreme preference for a type of sound and a strong bias against high performance very expensive gear, except perhaps a few you love. Surely people who share your defined and restricted preference will appreciate your reviews.

And no, your words do not upset this particular and I think most DCS owners. My reference is a Studer A80 playing copies of master tapes and life, and I know how good some top digital equipment - not just DCS - can sound with good recordings if properly matched and tuned, something that I agree with you, does not happen every time in shows.

Audiophile live is filled with diversity - IMHO we should enjoy it and pick what we prefer. But IMHO there is nothing to be won calling ugly and nasty names to equipment other people like.

Yes, I have an extreme preference for gear and systems that sound natural and create a "live" feeling when listening to them (recording permitting of course). in pursuit of that bias i have naturally been led in certain directions in preference to others. I am allergic to any kind of synthetic sounding artifacts and it doesn't matter how high "resolution" or "transparent" or "fast' etc. it sounds because if it has those artifacts it is wrong to me. This unfortunately eliminates most hifi in my book, regardless of price or shilling that has been done on it's behalf.

Please define "high performance very expensive gear"...to me this sounds like snobspeak for just "very expensive" gear has to be better...it doesn't have to be better. If there is a correlation between price and performance it is quite loose, particularly once you get over a few thousand dollars for a given piece of gear (except maybe speakers). So, do I think the pricing of many of the so-called "reference" DACs is silly and mainly a grab for recognition because of the high price and that it must equal higher performance?? In many, if not most cases it is a resounding yes!

I have heard so many very high priced disappointments that I have lost count.

That being said, I saved my highest praise in 2016 for the room at Munich that probably also cost the most, that being the Living Voice Kondo system. A lot of the resolution uber alles freaks here say it sounds too smooth or colored but it is one of the few systems with nearly no synthetic artifacts to give the game away. It might not be perfect (what is?) but it at least delivers a realistic, organic tonally in the right ballpark sound. More than I can say from most of the rest. The only time I heard a Wilson system sound really good at a show was last year with the Alexia and Nagra and I was super surprised because it had SS amps. It even made my top 5 room report as the only system with SS amps to do so. I haven't heard a Lamm/Wilson setup but would love too as it has real potential, IMO.

I have also been blown away by a couple of Wavac rooms in the past...particularly a room with the HE805 amp (and the top Wavac preamp) in 2006 at the London Heathrow show. Can't remember the speaker name but I hadn't heard them before and had ceramic drivers, which normally I don't like. Not this time...amazing tone and timbre with walkaround imaging and soundstaging...terribly expensive system but it delivered magic.

So, your assumption is based on a poor understanding of my priorities it seems. Also, you don't seem to realize that a lot of what is "high priced high performance" is really just luxury priced with mediocre performance.

I never called anybody's gear a nasty name. I stated my opinion on the sound of something and if that is now name calling, I guess we can just shut down this site.

 

[PeterA]

Almost all music produced is going through solid state ADC and DACs. How is it that the music was approved by the talent and not so by you?

Amir, do you know if the "talent" is exposed to alternatives, or do they approve of some sound produced by a narrow band of potential gear because that is simply what is being used and presented to them for any number of possible reasons: availability, standard practice, cost considerations or something else?

Regarding the central question of this thread, I'd say it is hard to judge something's worth, especially for other people. I only listen to vinyl in my system, but I have been exposed to some modern DACs. I've even directly compared a few to each other in the same system. I listened fairly extensively to the NADAC which was all the rage a short while ago. I did really enjoy the expensive dCS Rossini DAC and to my ears it had fewer artifacts than most other DACs I've heard. But I am the last person who can decide whether or not it is "really worth big bucks".

I do see lots of technological changes over a short amount of time, and I notice various people preferring one format/resolution over another and even computer files versus physical CDs. Digital, as a medium, seems far from settled. If I were to add a digital source to my system, I'd have little or no idea where to even begin, let alone how to determine value. Perhaps that is why I have not tried yet. I try to enjoy it in other people's systems and learn from them.

Resolution and the ability to sound natural are the two areas where I have had difficulty with digital. The better DACs that I have heard tend to do better in those two areas, and they happen to be more expensive.

 

[morricab]

Amir, do you know if the "talent" is exposed to alternatives, or do they approve of some sound produced by a narrow band of potential gear because that is simply what is being used and presented to them for any number of possible reasons: availability, standard practice, cost considerations or something else?

Regarding the central question of this thread, I'd say it is hard to judge something's worth, especially for other people. I only listen to vinyl in my system, but I have been exposed to some modern DACs. I've even directly compared a few to each other in the same system. I listened fairly extensively to the NADAC which was all the rage a short while ago. I did really enjoy the expensive dCS Rossini DAC and to my ears it had fewer artifacts than most other DACs I've heard. But I am the last person who can decide whether or not it is "really worth big bucks".

I do see lots of technological changes over a short amount of time, and I notice various people preferring one format/resolution over another and even computer files versus physical CDs. Digital, as a medium, seems far from settled. If I were to add a digital source to my system, I'd have little or no idea where to even begin, let alone how to determine value. Perhaps that is why I have not tried yet. I try to enjoy it in other people's systems and learn from them.

Resolution and the ability to sound natural are the two areas where I have had difficulty with digital. The better DACs that I have heard tend to do better in those two areas, and they happen to be more expensive.

Stick with analog...none of these latest rage DACs will beat your analog rig.

However; be on the lookout for a Monarchy Audio M24 DAC...shouldn't cost you more than $1K...you can thank me then for finding you a natural sounding DAC with more than adequate resolution. For maximum effect add a Monarchy DIP (or old Genesis digital lens) and a Monarchy Audio power regenerator...for less than $2K you have something very analog like in the best sense. Then get a decent transport (or USB to SPDIF converter) and spin cds or digital files (PCM only though up to 24/96...don't worry its more than enough). With a setup like this, you will not be depressed going from analog to digital...even with modest redbook cd.

For more dough then look at the Lampizator line or Aries Cerat if you are not inclined to believe something so good can cost so little.

Ironically, one of the biggest changes lately in digital is a back-to-the-future approach...discrete ladder DACs! Accuphase was doing that back in 1989 (first a 16 bit design and then a 20 bit one)! Manufacturers quickly went to the "on chip" approach that led to some of the all-time great sounding DAC chips: BB PCM63K and PCM1704, AD1862N and AD1865N, Ultra Analog D20400 and D20400A. MSB kept the discrete flame going and now it is back at democratic price levels (and stratospheric ones too). Are the new discrete better than the older "on chip" DAC modules? I am not so sure. They are nominally higher bit rate but that doesn't mean they sound better.

I can tell you that in some very important ways musically, my modest Monarchy wins overall against a DCS Elgar or Delius. Done the head to heads and it was pretty clear for naturalness and image palpability the Monarchy won hands down. Resolution was very close. Microdynamics was again the Monarchy...more alive.

I will be moving to an Aries Cerat Kassandra Mk2 reference(the 60Kg "base" model) but I will never part with my Monarchy...it will always be welcome in one of my systems. Interestingly, the Kassandra uses and even more archaic 18 bit DAC chip, the AD1865N but 16 of them. The Multi-multi bit idea was also pioneered by Accuphase (would love to get my hands on a DC91 with a whole buch of BB PCM63s inside but they are hard to come by).

 

[microstrip]

Yes, I have an extreme preference for gear and systems that sound natural and create a "live" feeling when listening to them (recording permitting of course). in pursuit of that bias i have naturally been led in certain directions in preference to others. I am allergic to any kind of synthetic sounding artifacts and it doesn't matter how high "resolution" or "transparent" or "fast' etc. it sounds because if it has those artifacts it is wrong to me. This unfortunately eliminates most hifi in my book, regardless of price or shilling that has been done on it's behalf.

Please define "high performance very expensive gear"...to me this sounds like snobspeak for just "very expensive" gear has to be better...it doesn't have to be better. If there is a correlation between price and performance it is quite loose, particularly once you get over a few thousand dollars for a given piece of gear (except maybe speakers). So, do I think the pricing of many of the so-called "reference" DACs is silly and mainly a grab for recognition because of the high price and that it must equal higher performance?? In many, if not most cases it is a resounding yes!

I have heard so many very high priced disappointments that I have lost count.

That being said, I saved my highest praise in 2016 for the room at Munich that probably also cost the most, that being the Living Voice Kondo system. A lot of the resolution uber alles freaks here say it sounds too smooth or colored but it is one of the few systems with nearly no synthetic artifacts to give the game away. It might not be perfect (what is?) but it at least delivers a realistic, organic tonally in the right ballpark sound. More than I can say from most of the rest. The only time I heard a Wilson system sound really good at a show was last year with the Alexia and Nagra and I was super surprised because it had SS amps. It even made my top 5 room report as the only system with SS amps to do so. I haven't heard a Lamm/Wilson setup but would love too as it has real potential, IMO.

I have also been blown away by a couple of Wavac rooms in the past...particularly a room with the HE805 amp (and the top Wavac preamp) in 2006 at the London Heathrow show. Can't remember the speaker name but I hadn't heard them before and had ceramic drivers, which normally I don't like. Not this time...amazing tone and timbre with walkaround imaging and soundstaging...terribly expensive system but it delivered magic.

So, your assumption is based on a poor understanding of my priorities it seems. Also, you don't seem to realize that a lot of what is "high priced high performance" is really just luxury priced with mediocre performance.

I never called anybody's gear a nasty name. I stated my opinion on the sound of something and if that is now name calling, I guess we can just shut down this site.

Probably 90% of the people in this forum will tell us that they share your "extreme preference" - sounding natural and create a live feeling. But they will have different ways of reaching it, with different equipment.

Anyway it is nice to see that your "most" is now becoming "many" - we will surely agree on "some". And I will surely restrain myself on commenting on the Aries Cerat Kassandra Mk2 until I listen to it in adequate conditions ...

I would not mind listening to Wavac's in my system - many people report nice things about them. And yes, usually equipment does not sound its best in shows but sometimes we have big surprises.

 

[amirm]

Amir, do you know if the "talent" is exposed to alternatives, or do they approve of some sound produced by a narrow band of potential gear because that is simply what is being used and presented to them for any number of possible reasons: availability, standard practice, cost considerations or something else?

Once a studio is picked, that is what they listen to. Prior to that if they have more leverage than their label, they can push for certain studio/gear to be used.

 

[Steve Williams]

I haven't heard a Lamm/Wilson setup but would love too as it has real potential, IMO.

Trust me when I say "it does"

Anytime you're on my side of the pond I would be happy to have you come by for a listen

 

[PeterA]

Once a studio is picked, that is what they listen to. Prior to that if they have more leverage than their label, they can push for certain studio/gear to be used.

Thanks, that's what I suspected. So, just because they approve of the sound does not mean that they necessarily like it, are aware that it could even be better if different equipment is used. I'm sure there are commercial compromises in at least some of the decisions being made with some of the recordings. I don't think it follows that simply because the talent approves something that an audiophile (morricab) should be criticized for thinking that it could be better. Perhaps some recordings have compression or artifacts or distortion that is too harsh to enjoy on a very revealing system. Perhaps some tube coloration makes some of these recordings more enjoyable, even listenable. I've been to a few live jazz performances where the PA system, run by some pro, ruined the sound.

There must be some standards to most commercial recordings, but there are alternative approaches with some "purist" labels and these can sound awfully good. I'd like to know more about what is done in this area, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

 

[morricab]

Trust me when I say "it does"

Anytime you're on my side of the pond I would be happy to have you come by for a listen

Thanks Steve, that is a nice offer, which I would be pleased to take you up on someday and of course the same for you if you find yourself wandering through Europe.

The best I have heard a Wilson set up to date was a pair of X1 Mk I and MK III with a KR Audio VA350i. First time with the Mk I in a smallish room...Worked amazingly well and it surprised me because I had not expected it based on my auditioning of smaller Wilsons (Watt/Puppy V for example). The Second time was in a large room with MkIIIs and it made the guy's eyes pop out of his head! He couldn't believe it. Source was the actually pretty good Krell SACD standard disk spinner. That speaker was a very easy load and a true 95db...loved the SET.

 

[sbo6]

Trust me when I say "it does"

Anytime you're on my side of the pond I would be happy to have you come by for a listen

X2 agree. I've an audio buddy with Lamm amps + Wilson Alexandrias and with his not too recent addition of an ARC Ref preamp it was absolutely stellar. His bass, about the best I've heard augment by a Rel Fathom which convinced me to purchase an F112, one of the best sonics / $ I've made. You are a lucky man Steve!

 

[microstrip]

X2 agree. I've an audio buddy with Lamm amps + Wilson Alexandrias and with his not too recent addition of an ARC Ref preamp it was absolutely stellar. His bass, about the best I've heard augment by a Rel Fathom which convinced me to purchase an F112, one of the best sonics / $ I've made. You are a lucky man Steve!

Can I ask which model of Lamm?

 

[sbo6]

Can I ask which model of Lamm?

I can't recall, I believe it was the hybrid tube / SS monoblocks. Switching from the Lamm preamp to the ARC 2 chassis preamp made a significant difference in the sound stage size, depth and dynamics as I recall.

 

[Steve Williams]

X2 agree. I've an audio buddy with Lamm amps + Wilson Alexandrias and with his not too recent addition of an ARC Ref preamp it was absolutely stellar. His bass, about the best I've heard augment by a Rel Fathom which convinced me to purchase an F112, one of the best sonics / $ I've made. You are a lucky man Steve!

There's a youtube video floating around with Vladimir being interviewed and said he never liked the sound of a Wilson speaker until he heard them with his electronics

 

[sbo6]

There's a youtube video floating around with Vladimir being interviewed and said he never liked the sound of a Wilson speaker until he heard them with his electronics

That's interesting. There's definitely a synergy going on with the pair. I've also heard Wilsons with Pass and Ayre monoblocks that sound quite different than the Lamms but very good too.

 

[amirm]

Thanks, that's what I suspected. So, just because they approve of the sound does not mean that they necessarily like it, are aware that it could even be better if different equipment is used.

I find it hard to believe that a talent lets out music under their name whose recording they don't like.

As to better equipment, this is a highly competitive business (recording/post production). There are hundreds if not thousands of post houses worldwide, all of whom trying to attract talent/label's business. If sticking a tube in a DAC gives true value to the recording, a bunch of them will jump on the opportunity to steal business from their competitors. Fact that this has not happened says that real music can be created and recorded with solid state and that is by far the norm. And that there is no truth to "solid state being unlistenable in a few hours" as morricab said. Don't you think the talent listens to their own music on solid state gear with no such complaints?

I'm sure there are commercial compromises in at least some of the decisions being made with some of the recordings. I don't think it follows that simply because the talent approves something that an audiophile (morricab) should be criticized for thinking that it could be better.

You can certainly go and colorize an artist's paintings. But making it "better" is an objective thing that is not established just because you say you get a headache after a few hours of looking at the unmolested painting.

Perhaps some recordings have compression or artifacts or distortion that is too harsh to enjoy on a very revealing system. Perhaps some tube coloration makes some of these recordings more enjoyable, even listenable. I've been to a few live jazz performances where the PA system, run by some pro, ruined the sound.

There must be some standards to most commercial recordings, but there are alternative approaches with some "purist" labels and these can sound awfully good. I'd like to know more about what is done in this area, but that is a discussion for a different thread.

There are no standards in audio, period. What we do know is that a final product was produced and put on a recording medium that was approved by the talent, recording engineer and label. The aim for high-fidelity reproduction is to stay faithful to that. On that front, there is no data whatsoever that says solid state DACs -- of the kind was used to approve said recording -- does any damage to the product as to require a different type of playback chain.

Now, if you want colorations and modifications, by all means, go for it. But don't say you get a headache listening to music with solid state DACs. 99% of professional and consumers into audio/music heavily would disagree with that. It is an exaggeration made with nothing to back it.

Heck, there is a chance that if I remove the identity of the DACs, morricab may indeed prefer the solid state DAC over a tube DAC that colors the sound.

I listen to hours and hours of music at shows and at home on solid state DACs. No problem as stated remotely exists.

 

[PeterA]

Thanks Amir. I'm suggesting that the talent is probably satisfied, but does not necessarily like, the product being released. There is a difference. I have read some reports that a few famous past musicians did not like what the studio did to their work. I am suggesting that they may be just satisfied because perhaps they were presented very few options. I can't imagine they all like their sound compressed as it often is, for instance. Doesn't some music sound better with greater dynamic range but instead, music was released compressed for storage reasons and for the loudness wars to get radio notice? We now read that different releases are mixed differently depending on how it is to be later heard.

Regardless, your arguments are not with me. I don't even own a DAC, let alone any tubes in my system, but I have heard and enjoyed the latest DACS from dCS, and to a lesser degree Berkeley, and I believe they are solid state designs. The dCS Vivaldi and Rossini are the least colored DACS that I have heard, that is that they exhibit none of the glare/distortion/artifacts that I have long associated with digital. Admittedly, my experience is very limited and I have heard very few DACs. Unfortunately, they are quite expensive.

 

[amirm]

OK, I will put away my fangs.

 

[morricab]

I find it hard to believe that a talent lets out music under their name whose recording they don't like.

As to better equipment, this is a highly competitive business (recording/post production). There are hundreds if not thousands of post houses worldwide, all of whom trying to attract talent/label's business. If sticking a tube in a DAC gives true value to the recording, a bunch of them will jump on the opportunity to steal business from their competitors. Fact that this has not happened says that real music can be created and recorded with solid state and that is by far the norm. And that there is no truth to "solid state being unlistenable in a few hours" as morricab said. Don't you think the talent listens to their own music on solid state gear with no such complaints?


You can certainly go and colorize an artist's paintings. But making it "better" is an objective thing that is not established just because you say you get a headache after a few hours of looking at the unmolested painting.


There are no standards in audio, period. What we do know is that a final product was produced and put on a recording medium that was approved by the talent, recording engineer and label. The aim for high-fidelity reproduction is to stay faithful to that. On that front, there is no data whatsoever that says solid state DACs -- of the kind was used to approve said recording -- does any damage to the product as to require a different type of playback chain.

Now, if you want colorations and modifications, by all means, go for it. But don't say you get a headache listening to music with solid state DACs. 99% of professional and consumers into audio/music heavily would disagree with that. It is an exaggeration made with nothing to back it.

Heck, there is a chance that if I remove the identity of the DACs, morricab may indeed prefer the solid state DAC over a tube DAC that colors the sound.

I listen to hours and hours of music at shows and at home on solid state DACs. No problem as stated remotely exists.

Heck Amir, I have two SS DACs at home as we speak and had others + SS cd players in the past...it is not like I was born with a silver tube in my mouth ;-). In small doses they are even somewhat enjoyable (One I have Lampizated...big improvement...particularly in loss of a bit of "edge" that was present on nearly all recordings and therefore unlikely to be the recordings). Both use one of the smoothest best sounding DAC modules ever made (Ultra Analog D20400) but never try to tell me a transitor output stage is uncolored...they are.

I used to have the Monarchy Audio M22B SE DAC, which was all SS and used the magnificent BB PCM63K chips...just like the M24 tube version I use now. It was, and still is a very good all SS PCM only DAC as it was one of the few that did the IV conversion correctly (with a 2500V/usec transimpedance amp). As good as that DAC is/was, the M24 is better in every way. It is also not a "tubey" colored sound DAC because it is not slapping a buffer at the end of an op amp like nearly every other "tube" DAC. Not all tube products produce a "tubey" sound...just like not all transistor products make an "edgy" sound. Long term listening tells a clear story.

 

[MadFloyd]

Does anyone ever learn anything from these types of threads? It seems like there have been so many threads like this one that use sensational headline-ish subject lines to draw the same members to them the way a moth goes to a flame, where the content seems to be combative with a lot of nitpicking of each others' posts.

I'm finding them both amusing and frustrating and while I usually avoid them, today I found myself reading and no I'm trying to resist starting my own, e.g.

"Why do Lampizators sound so soft and colored?"

"Why do horn speakers sound so harsh and not anything like live music?"

"Why would anyone who likes the sound of live music like solid state amps?"

"Why would anyone who likes the sound of live music like tube amps?"


(Ok, not all great examples, but you get the point).

Do you guys expect to successfully prove your point (e.g. win someone over) when there is no right or wrong and it all boils down to personal taste, or do you simply enjoy the debate? Just curious...