Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD


Hi All.

Putting together a reference level system.
My Source is predominantly standard 16/44 played from a MacMini using iTunes and Amarra. Some of my music is purchased from iTunes and the rest is ripped from standard CD's.
For my tastes in music, my high def catalogues are still limited; so Redbook 16/44 will be my primary source for quite some time.

I'm not spending DCS or MSB money. But $15-20k retail is not out of the question.

Upsampling vs non-upsampling?
USB input vs SPDIF?

All opinions welcome.

And I know I need to hear them, but getting these ultra $$$ DAC's into your house for an audition ain't easy.

Looking for musical, emotional, engaging, accurate , with great dimension. Not looking for analytical and sterile.
mattnshilp
That does not suprise me, DCS has been on top of the digital world the last 25 years!
09-11-14: Aplhifi
But even Almarg (or anyone else with such extensive experience) would agree that the new Berkeley converter should at least make possible for DSD64 through the S/PDIF inputs via DoP format and let their customers decide whether Pure DSD is better than DSD converted to 176/24 PCM.... Please correct me if I am wrong.
Having no specific familiarity with the tradeoffs that might be involved, I take no position on that. My only point, as I said in the first of my posts dated 9-10-14, is that "quality of implementation is likely to trump the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of any particular design approach."

Audiolabyrinth, thanks for the nice words in your post yesterday.

Regards,
-- Al
A few minutes after submitting my post just above I received my copy of the October 2014 issue of TAS, containing the Berkeley review and interview Erik referred to earlier. In the interview Michael Ritter of Berkeley addresses in a reasonable amount of detail his rationale for not including a USB interface and DoP capability in the design.

His comments about the lack of USB are very much along the lines of what I said earlier. His comments about the lack of DoP IMO represent a credible, plausible, and well stated design philosophy, especially for a component in this price range. I certainly recognize, however, that similarly credible and plausible cases could be made for opposing philosophies.

Accordingly, I would not categorize the arguments on either side of the coin as being BS, or as being grounds for either rejection or acceptance of a particular candidate. Again, "quality of implementation is likely to trump the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of any particular design approach." But after reading the review and interview, like Erik if I were willing to spend $16K for a DAC I would certainly put the Berkeley on my short list.

Regards,
-- Al
Using one op-amp is a lot different that cascading several of them. They do add compression, just like any active stage will, even tubes (but to lesser extent). The fewer the better. That is why I use one. The one I use is a lot more that just I/V converter too. It has 4 different functions.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
One of the consistent complaints concerning Op amps from some noted designers is their reliance on generous levels of NFB and it's sonic consequences. As expected there are divided camps on this issue. Some designers avoid it at all cost and others seem to embrace NFB in their circuits.