Tweet
Last Saturday I auditioned the Berk Ref2 DAC, ARC DAC9 and ARC Ref CD-9 player head-to-head. The dealer had it set up so I could change instantaneously between digital sources by using the Ref CD-9's transport to spin redbook CDs. The system was Magico S7, ARC Ref 250SE monoblocks and ARC Ref6 preamp. They had the system optimized as well as I've seen. I primarily listened to jazz vocals, jazz piano and small jazz combos.
The Berk Ref2 is the smoothest sounding and least fatiguing DAC I've ever heard. There is zero digital artifice. It is extremely organic sounding with gorgeous tonality on vocals. It is very neutral in presentation and does little editorializing. Midrange density is extraordinary and bass is tight and impactful.
Its imaging is pinpoint, placing vocalists and instruments in their appropriate places. However, soundstage width and depth were noticeably less than the ARC digital sources. I also felt that the highs weren't as extended and some of the harmonics or overtones of female vocalists were absent. I wondered if this was a bit of a trade-off in order to attain such an organic sound.
The DAC9 sounded similar to the Berk Ref2 in tonality but I would give the edge to the Berk Ref2 in both smoothness and refinement. What I preferred about the DAC9 to the Berk was its treble extension and bass texture. I also preferred the warmth, body and bloom it provided, although it didn't have the Berk's amazing midrange density.
The DAC9 had a noticeably deeper soundstage with superior layering of instruments. There was wonderful space around vocalists and instruments. What I didn't like was on certain tracks, imaging was too forward and sometimes misplaced.
The Ref CD-9 player had a similar sonic signature to the DAC9 but was superior in a number of ways. Its soundstage was wider and deeper with terrific layering, we're talking 3D! Imaging just sounded right. It also had more refinement, finesse and delicacy, bringing out subtleties of the performance that make music sound live as opposed to reproduced. It also produced wonderful warmth, body and bloom that even exceeded the DAC9. It had the same treble extension and wonderful bass texture as the DAC9.
What I didn't like about the Ref CD-9 was there was less purity and tonal accuracy in the timbres of the music than the Berk and DAC9. The DAC9 also produced more air around instruments and vocalists. I feel this was due to the Ref CD-9's five-year old DAC chip compared to the others' newer DAC chips. I couldn't help but wonder what combining the Ref CD-9's superior analog gain stage (2 input tubes, 2 output tubes & tube rectification) with the DAC9's superior digital circuitry would yield in sound quality.
So which did I prefer? Each component had its own strengths and weaknesses and I would be extremely satisfied with each of them in my system.
Please keep in mind this review is only my opinion and your mileage may vary due to system synergy, music preference and personal taste.
All the best,
Ken
The Berk Ref2 is the smoothest sounding and least fatiguing DAC I've ever heard. There is zero digital artifice. It is extremely organic sounding with gorgeous tonality on vocals. It is very neutral in presentation and does little editorializing. Midrange density is extraordinary and bass is tight and impactful.
Its imaging is pinpoint, placing vocalists and instruments in their appropriate places. However, soundstage width and depth were noticeably less than the ARC digital sources. I also felt that the highs weren't as extended and some of the harmonics or overtones of female vocalists were absent. I wondered if this was a bit of a trade-off in order to attain such an organic sound.
The DAC9 sounded similar to the Berk Ref2 in tonality but I would give the edge to the Berk Ref2 in both smoothness and refinement. What I preferred about the DAC9 to the Berk was its treble extension and bass texture. I also preferred the warmth, body and bloom it provided, although it didn't have the Berk's amazing midrange density.
The DAC9 had a noticeably deeper soundstage with superior layering of instruments. There was wonderful space around vocalists and instruments. What I didn't like was on certain tracks, imaging was too forward and sometimes misplaced.
The Ref CD-9 player had a similar sonic signature to the DAC9 but was superior in a number of ways. Its soundstage was wider and deeper with terrific layering, we're talking 3D! Imaging just sounded right. It also had more refinement, finesse and delicacy, bringing out subtleties of the performance that make music sound live as opposed to reproduced. It also produced wonderful warmth, body and bloom that even exceeded the DAC9. It had the same treble extension and wonderful bass texture as the DAC9.
What I didn't like about the Ref CD-9 was there was less purity and tonal accuracy in the timbres of the music than the Berk and DAC9. The DAC9 also produced more air around instruments and vocalists. I feel this was due to the Ref CD-9's five-year old DAC chip compared to the others' newer DAC chips. I couldn't help but wonder what combining the Ref CD-9's superior analog gain stage (2 input tubes, 2 output tubes & tube rectification) with the DAC9's superior digital circuitry would yield in sound quality.
So which did I prefer? Each component had its own strengths and weaknesses and I would be extremely satisfied with each of them in my system.
Please keep in mind this review is only my opinion and your mileage may vary due to system synergy, music preference and personal taste.
All the best,
Ken
Comment