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

[PeterA]

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.

Interesting. Can this explain why Al M. has reported that his digital sounded so much better once he hooked his DAC up to a power/line conditioner/transformer? Lower noise for a cleaner, more natural sound?

 

[jkeny]

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.

Totally agree! Also flat & undynamic, uninteresting sound are signs but one has to be careful that etched detail isn't hiding fooling one into thinking the sound has a natural dynamic

 

[RogerD]

Interesting. Can this explain why Al M. has reported that his digital sounded so much better once he hooked his DAC up to a power/line conditioner/transformer? Lower noise for a cleaner, more natural sound?

My experience is that most PC are star grounded internally. So that the current output has less noise. But that still leaves the noise level produced internally in the digital chain intact. Once you remove that internal noise,then you can really hear how good your digital chain really is. That's my experience.

 

[morricab]

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.

My Dac and phonostage are both plugged into a clean power regenerator, which improved the sound of both considerably.

 

[RogerD]

My Dac and phonostage are both plugged into a clean power regenerator, which improved the sound of both considerably.

And it should have,but it can get better....

 

[bibo01]

Interesting. I wonder how weighting of harmonic distortion could play a role there? ...

IMHO, harmonic distortion measurement is only useful during development phase. Regarding quality of reproduction is much more useful Integral Distortion. People do not hear harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, doppler, masking...each separately - "they hear all together".

 

[morricab]

IMHO, harmonic distortion measurement is only useful during development phase. Regarding quality of reproduction is much more useful Integral Distortion. People do not hear harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, doppler, masking...each separately - "they hear all together".

Yes, of course we hear it all together but in looking for ways to correlate what we hear with measurement it is somewhat cleaner than IM harmonics + the other distortions you have mentioned, which may be very difficult to actually measure. Pass did a white paper a few years ago where he showed how IM distortion can build up in electronics and he called it the "elephant in the room". Crowhurst likened the effects to a signal modulated noise floor.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, of course we hear it all together but in looking for ways to correlate what we hear with measurement it is somewhat cleaner than IM harmonics + the other distortions you have mentioned, which may be very difficult to actually measure. Pass did a white paper a few years ago where he showed how IM distortion can build up in electronics and he called it the "elephant in the room". Crowhurst likened the effects to a signal modulated noise floor.

Probably you are referring to Nelson Pass "Audio distortion and feedback" 2008 and the articles of Crowhurst of the 50's. Excellent work, but the level of the distortions they refer are two or more orders of magnitude that the values measured in current DAC's - see the figure of the IM distortion of the DCS Vivaldi with Filter 1 - no components at all bellow -130 dB (fig. 17)! https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system-measurements

However the next figure (fig. 18) shows the effect of using Filter 4 - a fantastic raise of the noise floor and IM components. I have to say that in a quick A/B test I am not able to identify any difference between them, in the long term listening I am preferring Filter 2 or Filter 3. It is why I am very prudent when talking about measurements and sound correlation, as IMHO a change in a power or signal cable, that does not produce any change in classical measurements, can produce a more immediately perceptible difference!

 

[bibo01]

Yes, of course we hear it all together but in looking for ways to correlate what we hear with measurement it is somewhat cleaner than IM harmonics + the other distortions you have mentioned, which may be very difficult to actually measure. Pass did a white paper a few years ago where he showed how IM distortion can build up in electronics and he called it the "elephant in the room". Crowhurst likened the effects to a signal modulated noise floor.

By definition:
Given a system, if in the spectrum of the response there are spectral components that were not present in the stimulus, the system is said to be nonlinear and the extra components are classified as nonlinear distortion (regardless of the cause).
Mathematically, the transfer function of a nonlinear system also depends on the amplitude and shape of the stimulus (hence the impulse function is not h(t) but h(t, s(t)).
Distortion is not difficult to measure: it is sufficient to compare spectra (which can be done with great accuracy and precision).
As far as a sound reproduction system is concerned, distortion can be audible or not audible. Audible distortion can be tolerated or not tolerated.
If the distortion is not audible, it is as if it was not there; if it is not tolerable, the system can be thrown away.
The problem of audible and tolerable distortion remains. This one exists, it can be heard, but it hurts only a little. This is largely subjective (some, for example, like it).
Distortion adds information that was not present in the stimulus: this "bad" extra information can mask the "good" one. So the effect of distortion is always masking. Even noise has a masking effect, but less severe than distortion because it is not related to the stimulus and does not translate more information but only "disturbance". Noise contributes to Listening Fatigue.

The solution is to point directly to systems that produce non audible distortion in actual conditions of use, and the most important thing to define is the perception threshold or JDD (depending on the type of measurement made). The most significant (though not "ideal") measurement for a loudspeaker is the measurement of Integral Distortion with multitone signals (the JDD is 0.32% at 90 dB so the spectrum of the distortion must be at least 50 dB below the spectrum of the stimulus). For electronics the significant measurements are Null Test and Random Distortion (which have different JDD).
A playback chain is made up of source, amplifier and speakers. All the distortion produced by the source goes into the amplifier and that produced by the amplifier goes to the speakers which distort on their own. At each step the distortion, if any, increases and an non audible distortion in the source can become audible. It follows that if a 0.32% distortion for a loudspeaker is non audible, that one of the amplifier will have to be 0.1% and that one of the source at 0.032% (this is just an example to understand). Less is better. So we should not read the distortion data all in the same way.
Then there are tube amplifiers and their particular relationship with aural distortion, but this is all another story because it is strongly related to subjectivity. I will say more: a chain formed by analogue turntable, tube amplifier and horn loudspeakers or "mono broad band" is not judged instrumentally: you either like it or dislike it.

This is the situation. Then many things can be said, but in substance they have to agree with the above. Audible but tolerable distortion has a limit: sooner or later you find a musical program that makes you hear it. This is solved with information: those who buy a pair of mini-speakers must be aware that they are suitable for certain things and not for others.

 

[morricab]

Probably you are referring to Nelson Pass "Audio distortion and feedback" 2008 and the articles of Crowhurst of the 50's. Excellent work, but the level of the distortions they refer are two or more orders of magnitude that the values measured in current DAC's - see the figure of the IM distortion of the DCS Vivaldi with Filter 1 - no components at all bellow -130 dB (fig. 17)! https://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system-measurements

However the next figure (fig. 18) shows the effect of using Filter 4 - a fantastic raise of the noise floor and IM components. I have to say that in a quick A/B test I am not able to identify any difference between them, in the long term listening I am preferring Filter 2 or Filter 3. It is why I am very prudent when talking about measurements and sound correlation, as IMHO a change in a power or signal cable, that does not produce any change in classical measurements, can produce a more immediately perceptible difference!

So, are you saying that you don't hear any difference in the filters for short term A/B listening but for longer time listening you have come to appreciate some filters more than others? I find that interesting because when my friend had his Delius and later Elgar, we played with these filters and found them highly audible even in short term listening. We formed a very strong and definitive preferrence for one filter in particular (can't remember now which one but I htink it was a minimum phase type) and he stuck with that. We also strongly preferred 176.4Khz to 192Khz for redbook cd.

It is no surprise that filter 4 is not your top choice. I don't say the measurements tell all but the noise floor there will obscure low level information, even if subltly and it is probably not a true noise anyway. With digital there are other issues that are not just harmonic distortion related that can impact SQ as well...jitter being a big one...

Have you measured the cable swaps to see if there is really nothing measureable there? Noise rejection, I think, is a big factor here.

 

[morricab]

By definition:
Given a system, if in the spectrum of the response there are spectral components that were not present in the stimulus, the system is said to be nonlinear and the extra components are classified as nonlinear distortion (regardless of the cause).
Mathematically, the transfer function of a nonlinear system also depends on the amplitude and shape of the stimulus (hence the impulse function is not h(t) but h(t, s(t)).
Distortion is not difficult to measure: it is sufficient to compare spectra (which can be done with great accuracy and precision).
As far as a sound reproduction system is concerned, distortion can be audible or not audible. Audible distortion can be tolerated or not tolerated.
If the distortion is not audible, it is as if it was not there; if it is not tolerable, the system can be thrown away.
The problem of audible and tolerable distortion remains. This one exists, it can be heard, but it hurts only a little. This is largely subjective (some, for example, like it).
Distortion adds information that was not present in the stimulus: this "bad" extra information can mask the "good" one. So the effect of distortion is always masking. Even noise has a masking effect, but less severe than distortion because it is not related to the stimulus and does not translate more information but only "disturbance". Noise contributes to Listening Fatigue.

The solution is to point directly to systems that produce non audible distortion in actual conditions of use, and the most important thing to define is the perception threshold or JDD (depending on the type of measurement made). The most significant (though not "ideal") measurement for a loudspeaker is the measurement of Integral Distortion with multitone signals (the JDD is 0.32% at 90 dB so the spectrum of the distortion must be at least 50 dB below the spectrum of the stimulus). For electronics the significant measurements are Null Test and Random Distortion (which have different JDD).
A playback chain is made up of source, amplifier and speakers. All the distortion produced by the source goes into the amplifier and that produced by the amplifier goes to the speakers which distort on their own. At each step the distortion, if any, increases and an non audible distortion in the source can become audible. It follows that if a 0.32% distortion for a loudspeaker is non audible, that one of the amplifier will have to be 0.1% and that one of the source at 0.032% (this is just an example to understand). Less is better. So we should not read the distortion data all in the same way.
Then there are tube amplifiers and their particular relationship with aural distortion, but this is all another story because it is strongly related to subjectivity. I will say more: a chain formed by analogue turntable, tube amplifier and horn loudspeakers or "mono broad band" is not judged instrumentally: you either like it or dislike it.

This is the situation. Then many things can be said, but in substance they have to agree with the above. Audible but tolerable distortion has a limit: sooner or later you find a musical program that makes you hear it. This is solved with information: those who buy a pair of mini-speakers must be aware that they are suitable for certain things and not for others.

People have been making claims about devices measuring so low in distortion as to be inaudible for a long time. Probably most recently was the brand Halcro and the n core guys are at least suggesting the same...particularly if you read Bruno Putzey's white papers. Of course a distortion in the source will be amplified in the preamp and then the amp to the speaker, which usually has the highest distortion of all components in a system; however, it is still easy to hear electronic distortions through a pair of speakers. How can this be if the distortion of the speakers is 10x higher than the component?? It comes down to TYPE of distortion. Speakers are electro/mechanical and as such they tend to make lower order distortions that are different in nature from most electronic distortions that contain a lot of high order harmonic and high order IM distortions...even if at a very low level, objectively speaking. Speakers are nearly always additive in character...there is not much in the way of a mechanism for them to be subtractive...although some really highly damped designs (Magico, Rockport?)could perhaps fit the subtractive model...although they will of course have minor additive colorations.

Sadly, all electronics STILL leaving their sonic imprint on the overall sound and sometimes, despite very low objective levels, that sonic imprint is rather strong. Sometimes that imprint is positive (as in additive) and sometimes that imprint is negative (as in subtractive) to the overall gestalt one expects to hear. With lower quality tube and no feedback designs it is often an additive imprint. With some ultra low distortion designs it is often a subtractive imprint. I think it is this one that needs more explanation as the additive one most people can pretty easily understand.

The subtractive one is where when you listen you hear how fast, transparent, clean, resolved and tightly controlled everything is... but tonally it is lacking the color of real life (to one degree or another) and there is a lack of natural flow that ultimately gives a synthetic or mechanical quality...kind of like artificial Strawberry flavor is to the real thing. It gets the main things right and yet there is something missing that allows it to decieve us into being real. In fact, the artifical flavor is missing the hundreds of minor components that give a strawberry its natural flavor. The artificial one has maybe a dozen of the major components. That is what most gear that is subtractive sounds like to me and this is most of the ultra measuring gear I have heard at length.

Nelson Pass, and others from the past, have speculated that while negative feedback indeed reduces static distortion that it seems to remove part of the music as well. I don't think it is some much removal as masking (Crowhurst's signal modulated noise floor concept would indeed get rid of a lot of minor "flavor" components that would then fall under it and "gray out" the sound). This aspect of electronic handling of signal I think has not been addressed very carefully.

When two DACs or amps measure below what people think "should" be inaudible and their sum of distortions also would fall below that then we should expect no audible coloration...but do we actually get that? Are our recordings poor enough that we cannot get natural tonality from most of them with "inaudible" gear? If the answer is yes and the perfect measuring gear is telling the truth then this lessens the pleasure of listening to recorded music and makes only going to hear the music live a true alternative for one who cares if natural instrument tone is preserved. If this view is correct, then the additive gear sells well because people crave a tonality that is not on the recordings and that the "truthful" gear doesn't "spice up".

OR

A large number of recordings have properly captured the natural tone and complexity of the instruments, including proper spatial and dynamic relationships. If this view is correct then one has to look at the subtractive issue more carefully because something of that natural beauty is being lost in the "matter of fact" approach by the majority of electronics. Somewhat additive gear might exaggerate this but the best stuff has only minor additives that are not so offensive but the beauty and proper musical relationships are better represented.

Now, based on some psychoacoustic work, the latter is quite possibly the more correct scenario because of the way in which most electronics generate distortion.

 

[microstrip]

So, are you saying that you don't hear any difference in the filters for short term A/B listening but for longer time listening you have come to appreciate some filters more than others? I find that interesting because when my friend had his Delius and later Elgar, we played with these filters and found them highly audible even in short term listening. We formed a very strong and definitive preferrence for one filter in particular (can't remember now which one but I htink it was a minimum phase type) and he stuck with that. We also strongly preferred 176.4Khz to 192Khz for redbook cd.

It is no surprise that filter 4 is not your top choice. I don't say the measurements tell all but the noise floor there will obscure low level information, even if subltly and it is probably not a true noise anyway. With digital there are other issues that are not just harmonic distortion related that can impact SQ as well...jitter being a big one...

Have you measured the cable swaps to see if there is really nothing measureable there? Noise rejection, I think, is a big factor here.

I did not carry formal tests, I do not have the time or interest in them - I just changed the filters and in A/B switching did not find the type of difference that makes us feel there was a significant immediate change. No experience with the Delius, I only have the Elgar close to the Vivaldi.

Van den Hul referred that in order to measure cable differences you must have instruments that accurately measure bellow - 140 dB . My usb spectrometer does not show any difference with cables - although it clearly shows, for example, differences in noise due to different layouts of cables or grounding arrangements, that sometimes are not clearly audible!

 

[MadFloyd]

I did not carry formal tests, I do not have the time or interest in them - I just changed the filters and in A/B switching did not find the type of difference that makes us feel there was a significant immediate change. No experience with the Delius, I only have the Elgar close to the Vivaldi.

Van den Hul referred that in order to measure cable differences you must have instruments that accurately measure bellow - 140 dB . My usb spectrometer does not show any difference with cables - although it clearly shows, for example, differences in noise due to different layouts of cables or grounding arrangements, that sometimes are not clearly audible!

For what it's worth, I struggle to hear differences between the Vivaldi filters.

 

[morricab]

I did not carry formal tests, I do not have the time or interest in them - I just changed the filters and in A/B switching did not find the type of difference that makes us feel there was a significant immediate change. No experience with the Delius, I only have the Elgar close to the Vivaldi.

Van den Hul referred that in order to measure cable differences you must have instruments that accurately measure bellow - 140 dB . My usb spectrometer does not show any difference with cables - although it clearly shows, for example, differences in noise due to different layouts of cables or grounding arrangements, that sometimes are not clearly audible!

Well, no experience with Vivaldi but with Delius and Elgar they were pretty obvious. As to the cables, I am thinking about the noise riding on the signal as well as alterations to the signal itself. However, IF AJ is right, then this blows the whole idea of "inaudible" levels of distortion if we can perceive cable issues down at that level...it means amps, DACs and preamps will be pretty obvious by comparison!!

 

[Al M.]

PAre our recordings poor enough that we cannot get natural tonality from most of them with "inaudible" gear? If the answer is yes and the perfect measuring gear is telling the truth then this lessens the pleasure of listening to recorded music and makes only going to hear the music live a true alternative for one who cares if natural instrument tone is preserved. If this view is correct, then the additive gear sells well because people crave a tonality that is not on the recordings and that the "truthful" gear doesn't "spice up".

OR

A large number of recordings have properly captured the natural tone and complexity of the instruments, including proper spatial and dynamic relationships. If this view is correct then one has to look at the subtractive issue more carefully because something of that natural beauty is being lost in the "matter of fact" approach by the majority of electronics. Somewhat additive gear might exaggerate this but the best stuff has only minor additives that are not so offensive but the beauty and proper musical relationships are better represented.

Now, based on some psychoacoustic work, the latter is quite possibly the more correct scenario because of the way in which most electronics generate distortion.

Brad, I agree that the second scenario is more likely.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

A large number of recordings have properly captured the natural tone and complexity of the instruments, including proper spatial and dynamic relationships. If this view is correct then one has to look at the subtractive issue more carefully because something of that natural beauty is being lost in the "matter of fact" approach by the majority of electronics. Somewhat additive gear might exaggerate this but the best stuff has only minor additives that are not so offensive but the beauty and proper musical relationships are better represented.

Now, based on some psychoacoustic work, the latter is quite possibly the more correct scenario because of the way in which most electronics generate distortion.

Brad, I agree that the second scenario is more likely.

listening to the MSB Select II, after also living with the Trinity dac previously, it seems that using a dac which is able to eliminate any analog output stage (the dac produces sufficient voltage itself) allows for a more direct connection to the music. which is what I'm hearing and more closely approaches the analog character (the Select II more so than the Trinity dac).

of course, this is not an easy or simple thing to execute and there is much more involved.

 

[morricab]

listening to the MSB Select II, after also living with the Trinity dac previously, it seems that using a dac which is able to eliminate any analog output stage (the dac produces sufficient voltage itself) allows for a more direct connection to the music. which is what I'm hearing and more closely approaches the analog character.

of course, this is not an easy or simple thing to execute and there is much more involved.

Yeah the analog output stage is the achilles heel of most DACs I would say.

 

[microstrip]

Well, no experience with Vivaldi but with Delius and Elgar they were pretty obvious. As to the cables, I am thinking about the noise riding on the signal as well as alterations to the signal itself. However, IF AJ is right, then this blows the whole idea of "inaudible" levels of distortion if we can perceive cable issues down at that level...it means amps, DACs and preamps will be pretty obvious by comparison!!

I hope it was not the case, but I have seen DACs where the filters changed the output levels - the differences were easily measurable with a test CD. The same situation could happen for the output voltage in SACD or CD mode in some players. The Vivaldi keeps level to .1%.

 

[microstrip]

listening to the MSB Select II, after also living with the Trinity dac previously, it seems that using a dac which is able to eliminate any analog output stage (the dac produces sufficient voltage itself) allows for a more direct connection to the music. which is what I'm hearing and more closely approaches the analog character (the Select II more so than the Trinity dac).

of course, this is not an easy or simple thing to execute and there is much more involved.

Even with the NH458? Are you using it SE or XLR?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Even with the NH458? Are you using it SE or XLR?

sorry, I was not clear.

whatever dac I'm using will be run through the darTZeel pre; which as a preamp I view as 'straight wire with gain'....using the 50 ohm 'zeel' interface.

OTOH whether that dac has it's own output gain stage (solid state or tubed) seems to matter a lot in the purity of the sound.

neither the MSB Select II nor the Trinity dac have such an analog output gain stage as they don't need them. and my hunch is that that is significant.

I'm sure there are alternate views of how my dart pre fits into this picture, I can only say what I hear.

MSB has agreed to incorporate a 50 ohm interface into one of their output modules if I wanted to go direct into my dart monos. I could try that...maybe. but my dart pre also has my phono stage(s).....so not likely the way I will go. the modular aspect of the Select II does open up opportunities other dacs cannot easily consider.