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

[microstrip]

Well if you don't hear them...rejoice and enjoy the music. But please then don't give advice or become a hifi critic, ok? It requires some sensitivity to these kinds of things to help out the others "afflicted" with a high sensitivity to unnatural sounds.

It has nothing to do with other people's perspectives it has everything to do with the sensitivity or lack thereof in assessing sound quality.

As far as I see, WBF members are just friendly posters posting experiences and their opinions. And surely every audiophile likes to help others, sometimes against their will ...

And sorry, IMHO someone having an unnatural susceptibility to specific aspects of reproduced music is not the best person to help most of the others, surely excepting those who share this susceptibility.

 

[morricab]

No this is a very different case. Your views about solid state DACs goes against 99% of listeners on the subjective side as well as objective.

There are two explanations:

1. You are right and 99% of listeners of either type are wrong.

2. You are wrong and hence, your method of evaluation is improper.

I am working toward #2 because #1 is untenable and easily disproven. So many of us are happy with solid state DACs with none of the problems you say universally plagues that implementation.

On #2, first we have to remove your preconditioned bias to think solid state sounds bad. Until we do that, we can't get a fair evaluation from you. My late grandfather in law, may he rest in peace, hated cheese. We had him over once and my wife wanted to make cheesecake. Knowing he would not even touch it, she made it chocolate cheesecake. He ate it and complimented how great it was over and over again! He had no idea it had cheese in it.

Likewise, we need to get you past your predisposition to get to what your ear really like and dislike. Like my late grandfather in law above, we need to create a situation where you don't know you are listening to solid state DAC to see if the fatigue remains. My bet is that it would disappear like a fart in the wind because the rest of us don't hear it. If you don't believe us, then just remove that knowledge and see for yourself. You don't even have to tell us that you did such a test. Just do it for yourself. After all, if fatigue is as present as you say is there, it should remain so without said knowledge of DAC. The only reason to not do it is to want to stay in a mistaken state.

And oh, you can do the testing in as long of a term as you want. Put one DAC in there and listen for days or weeks and then switch. You simply have to have some else do the switching and you not knowing which DAC is being connected. A loved one should be able to do that for you. Note that you have to repeat the process about 8 times or so.[/QUOTE


No Amir, I think you are wrong about the 99% number for the high end...as I said mass market cd players and built in devices don't count here...the masses don't care one way or the other. I will fight you tooth and nail on your strawman assumptions. Show me your data for 99% of all high end users of DACs are SS. Otherwise it is a BS number you made up. In my own circle it is 50%.

Since you are almost certainly wrong about this number then it basically throws off your whole psychological assessment of my tube "affliction". BTW., you may not have been in Munich, but there the tube affliction is everywhere! A lot of people need your help!!

Therefore, your suggestions are utter nonsense as well and not worth addressing beyond the obvious that I had SS DACs and still do. You have lost it apparently and only listen to yourself. I have lived with SS DACs AFTER purchasing and living with my tube DAC...I still have them and use one in fact in my downstairs system...it is ok... The other one I was using in my big system for about a year and half but would go back to the tube one ultimately.

I was like you once with an all SS system...gradually I realized it doesn't sound real enough for me and I tried tubes and found that much more to my liking...that is how all guys shift over I guess. I seems one of the last steps for a lot of people is moving away from SS sources. My Monarchy M22B SE DAC was the last non-tube piece in my system (it was and still is a very good ). Nobody steered me to the tubes...I just naturally gravitated there because to me it sounds more realistic.

I have bought 3 SS dacs since the acquisition of my Monarchy M24 some 10 years ago and I still have two that serve in minor duty roles but one I turned into a tube DAC...Lampizated it when it was possible to buy kits from them still. So now I actually have two tube DACs ;-)!

I would not have switched from SS to tubes in the first place if I found the sound natural and engaging...I tried the M24 on a whim because I was "happy" with the other one...time has told which won. Same for SS amps and preamps. Surely you are not going to tell me that 99% of high end listeners are only using SS for amps and preamps are you? You sound like a guy who is trying far to hard to convince me that I am delusional.

Funny, but most of my colleagues have shifted towards tubes as well (Gasp! SET even...), in part at least, from hearing my systems. Not to mention for a very long time I was using hybrids (KR Audio SETs are hybrids...only the output is tube).

Let me ask you a question...is it a better reproduction if it sounds more real or if it measures better? Oh wait! I forgot that all those differences disappear like a fart in the wind when we can't see what we listen with.

 

[Al M.]

And sorry, IMHO someone having an unnatural susceptibility to specific aspects of reproduced music is not the best person to help most of the others, surely excepting those who share this susceptibility.

You managed to say what I alluded to in a much more friendly manner than I did, which I respect.

 

[morricab]

I have had the same thing happen to me but I didn't let the wrong conclusions guide me. I did a correction with Dirac to my system. Thought it screwed up the high frequencies. I redid the correction, this time limiting it to 200 Hz. All the high frequency problems went away. Then I look at the control panel for Dirac and noticed that I had not yet told it to use the new settings! In other words, it was still doing full correction and nothing had changed but my perception.

Another time I was trying to teach my two sons the effects of room EQ. I have a programmable parametric EQ where I can turn filters on and off. I created a filter and asked my sons if they could hear the improvement that it was making. Both gave me a blank look causing me to look at the interface and realizing I had not enabled said filter! It was all in my mind that it was turning on and off.

Let's agree that the effects of such EQ is quite audible. To be mistaken about them shows how powerful our mind is to create very large differences that are not really there.

It is for this reason, especially in light of your conclusions that go against so many of us, to take some steps to verify what you are thinking is going on here. It takes less effort to do than investing in writing all of these posts.

Who said I have anything against EQ?? My speakers though are a rather easy load and so a reasonable damping factor will give a linear response...no amp induced EQ curve here bub. I have used digital and analog EQ in the past...it was quite useful to tame a room resonance I had at 62Hz. I still have one that I use now mainly to make measurements (it has a good RTA and db meter). I am a scientist and I know how to go about process of elimination and how to address multiple factors and have done extensive room measurements and corrections in the past. Ulitmately though it was often not a net Plus in the sound category. But I don't need to keep doing the same experiments over and over...I learn from them. I need no instructions from your side...believe me. Also, active xovers, room correction etc. I have been there and done that.

 

[morricab]

As far as I see, WBF members are just friendly posters posting experiences and their opinions. And surely every audiophile likes to help others, sometimes against their will ...

And sorry, IMHO someone having an unnatural susceptibility to specific aspects of reproduced music is not the best person to help most of the others, surely excepting those who share this susceptibility.

Of course and I never said it was anything more or less than that, despite Al's trolling attempts to get me to say otherwise.

As to your comments about unnatural susceptibility...this is a load of nonsense. A person who is more sensitive to changes in a system can only be more useful if used properly. Wouldn't you consider a more powerful microscope of more use than one that is less powerful? In the hands of an expert it most certainly is. Of course that person also has to have a good subjective idea what changes are actually beneficial to sound quality, just like the scientist needs to make an interpretation of the observations...first he has to be able to SEE those bits of information and then operate on them.

 

[amirm]

Who said I have anything against EQ??

The point was not EQ but that your brain makes up things that are so large audibly such as EQ. If we are susceptible to such bias, then you need to take actions against it.

I will give you a non-EQ example.

I bought some high res music in PCM from Blue Coast music. Cookie, the owner/founder followed up with me and sent me the original format which was DSD. In other words, the PCM version I bought was originally converted from DSD. Since my DAC doesn't play DSD, I had set Roon to covert it on the fly to PCM at 96 Khz. I set up an AB test and was surprised that the DSD converted files sounded so much better. There was more detail, air, analog-like sound, etc. in DSD version that was being converted to PCM. I was surprised there was so much difference between off-line converted files I had bought in PCM versus on the fly conversion by Roon.

Right then I noticed that the on-the-fly converted version was a bit louder. I go in settings and noticed Roon by default was applying a +6db gain in format conversion from DSD to PCM. I dialed that down by 2 db and by then, they were subjectively as loud as each other. The moment I did that, all the sonic differences disappeared! The two had same detail, same air, same analogness, etc. I was being fooled by simple level difference between the two playback chains.

Now let's talk about DACs. These devices have analog outputs with no standards with respect to level. As such, every DAC puts out a different level. See this example review I did on Behringer DAC against iFi: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/budget-dac-review-behringer-umc204hd.1658/

As the graph indicates, the iFi DAC is 4-5 db louder than Behringer. If this level difference is not compensated for, you could easily think the iFi has more detail, air, analog-like, etc.

Unless you study and go through such experiences you simply are not well positioned to make strong statements about fidelity of DACs. You just can't especially when your view is so opposed to many others.

 

[amirm]

No Amir, I think you are wrong about the 99% number for the high end...as I said mass market cd players and built in devices don't count here...the masses don't care one way or the other. I will fight you tooth and nail on your strawman assumptions. Show me your data for 99% of all high end users of DACs are SS. Otherwise it is a BS number you made up. In my own circle it is 50%.

I go to half a dozen audio shows a year. I listen to hundreds of high-end audio systems a year. When I talk about what is common out there, it is not some idle speculation. Solid state DACs are hugely dominant.

Here is the list of Recommended DACs by stereophile in 2016: https://www.stereophile.com/content/2016-recommended-components-digital-processors

I count 3 tubed DACs. In contrast, there are 27 solid state DACs.

None of these are mass market products. Benchmark alone will outsell all the tube DACs combined if not by factor of 10.

Your circle is a highly biased one if the numbers are to be believed.

 

[amirm]

Let me ask you a question...is it a better reproduction if it sounds more real or if it measures better?

No, measurements need to be interpreted. Sometimes they say nothing, sometimes they say a lot as I showed in my last post.

Oh wait! I forgot that all those differences disappear like a fart in the wind when we can't see what we listen with.

That's right. What is the old saying in cooking, "people eat with their eyes?"

 

[microstrip]

Of course and I never said it was anything more or less than that, despite Al's trolling attempts to get me to say otherwise.

As to your comments about unnatural susceptibility...this is a load of nonsense. A person who is more sensitive to changes in a system can only be more useful if used properly. Wouldn't you consider a more powerful microscope of more use than one that is less powerful? In the hands of an expert it most certainly is. Of course that person also has to have a good subjective idea what changes are actually beneficial to sound quality, just like the scientist needs to make an interpretation of the observations...first he has to be able to SEE those bits of information and then operate on them.

Sorry, but your capacity of considering that what others think is a load of nonsense does not help and calling trollers to other members who disagree with you when answering me does not help also.

But no, a more powerful instrument is not forcefully more useful. It depends of the job you want to carry and how well you are prepared to use it, as you say. But IMHO we should keep science and analogies far from our posts, they do not add anything to them. We are just debating experiences and preference, nothing else.

I fail to see anything positive in this bitter argumentation of the intrinsic magic qualities of DAC technologies or electrical matching or SS versus tube. Just hunches, sometimes interesting hunches, nothing else.

 

[853guy]

I go to half a dozen audio shows a year. I listen to hundreds of high-end audio systems a year. When I talk about what is common out there, it is not some idle speculation. Solid state DACs are hugely dominant.

Here is the list of Recommended DACs by stereophile in 2016: https://www.stereophile.com/content/2016-recommended-components-digital-processors

I count 3 tubed DACs. In contrast, there are 27 solid state DACs.

None of these are mass market products. Benchmark alone will outsell all the tube DACs combined if not by factor of 10.

Your circle is a highly biased one if the numbers are to be believed.

Lampizator. TotalDac. Aries Cerat. Audio Note. Zanden. Audio Research. Accustic Arts. Line Magnetic. La Scala. Allnic. Mhdt Lab. Jadis. Ayon. AMR. Metronome. Acoustic Plan.

Do you know who owns those DACs? Members of this forum. Your circle must be a highly biased one to discount the number of tube DACs that are in actual use but don’t get reviewed in Stereophile.

853guy

 

[j.phelan]

amirm:

Yup...and preamps and power amps the same thing. Cutting-edge sound *only* comes solid-state these days. A forced opinion, but one that I believe.

SS measures lower in noise and has superior transients and speed. Although good sounding, tubes can never be (true) high-resolution devices. Not with their electrons bouncing around the element.

SS was built with high-power (meaning complexity, more parts) since the 70s and this stalled its advance. It would have advanced sooner if we only needed 20 watts to power our speakers. But it achieved greatness anyway !

 

[Al M.]

Lampizator. TotalDac. Aries Cerat. Audio Note. Zanden. Audio Research. Accustic Arts. Line Magnetic. La Scala. Allnic. Mhdt Lab. Jadis. Ayon. AMR. Metronome. Acoustic Plan.

Do you know who owns those DACs? Members of this forum. Your circle must be a highly biased one to discount the number of tube DACs that are in actual use but don’t get reviewed in Stereophile.

853guy

Yes, and how many members on this forum have solid state DACs? That's going to be a long list to count.

 

[j.phelan]

853guy:

Totaldac is solid-state or tube and Zanden appears to be gone. Their website dates from 2014.

 

[Al M.]

amirm:

Yup...and preamps and power amps the same thing. Cutting-edge sound *only* comes solid-state these days. A forced opinion, but one that I believe.

SS measures lower in noise and has superior transients and speed. Although good sounding, tubes can never be (true) high-resolution devices. Not with their electrons bouncing around the element.

SS was built with high-power (meaning complexity, more parts) since the 70s and this stalled its advance. It would have advanced sooner if we only needed 20 watts to power our speakers. But it achieved greatness anyway !

Obviously, your experience with tube amps is very limited when you say that SS intrinsically has "superior transients and speed". I disagree about the "higher resolution" part too. And no, I am not a die-hard tube guy, even though I do have tube amps. If I needed an amp for a high-power situation (I don't) and had the money, I'd buy a Spectral preamp/amp combo in a heartbeat.

(But yes, I will readily admit that many tube amps are rather "slower" sounding. But not all of them, and that's the point.)

 

[853guy]

Yes, and how many members on this forum have solid state DACs? That's going to be a long list to count.

Many, I am sure, Al.

But if we’re going to start using the word “bias” in an attempt to prove whatever point we think should be made, then let’s expand the data set beyond a quick read of Stereophile’s Recommended Components list as Amir did, shall we?

853guy

 

[853guy]

853guy:

Totaldac is solid-state or tube and Zanden appears to be gone. Their website dates from 2014.

Please re-read my post for the context in which I limit my list to those particular manufacturers.

Cheers,

853guy

 

[the sound of Tao]

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...

How completely wise these words, we just never learn do we. It is probably naivety at best and narcissism at worst for us to confuse any personal preference as any absolute best... always was, always will be. Sigh.

Moderation brings us to the centre of understanding. The extremes hold us only in opposition.

 

[Al M.]

Many, I am sure, Al.

But if we’re going to start using the word “bias” in an attempt to prove whatever point we think should be made, then let’s expand the data set beyond a quick read of Stereophile’s Recommended Components list as Amir did, shall we?

853guy

Fair point.

 

[BMCG]

Many, I am sure, Al.

But if we’re going to start using the word “bias” in an attempt to prove whatever point we think should be made, then let’s expand the data set beyond a quick read of Stereophile’s Recommended Components list as Amir did, shall we?

853guy

ahh why is Amir's use of the recommended DAC list from the largest circulation audiophile magazine an invalid reference to the relative status of leading Tube vs Solid State DAC's?

useful datapoint to me...and suspect its signal to noise...rather better than much in this thread...

 

[853guy]

ahh why is Amir's use of the recommended DAC list from the largest circulation audiophile magazine an invalid reference to the relative status of leading Tube vs Digital DAC's?

useful datapoint to me...and suspect its signal to noise...rather better than much in this thread...

I didn't say it was invalid.

I suggested it was highly selective, given that Stereophile doesn't review products that don't have five or more US dealers, ultimately preventing it from reviewing many of the above manufacturers I mentioned, and Amir has a habit of selective exposure in the data he presents.

853guy