I have some “issues” with the 176.4kHz idea, particularly knowing the most of the RR recordings were not recorded in 176.4kHz. I am glad that they did not go for X48K format but stuck with X44 (I more like the Linn’s 88.2KHz “Studio Masters” idea). Still, I am glad that Keith Johnson's boys back with new DAC (with HDCD!!!)and that they try to market the “raw” files. I was told for a last year that Berkeley's DAC was “coming”, so it is out eventually. The “raw” files? It is what I always advocated. I still would prefer to have them not “mastered” but it would be too much to ask. Would it be?

Reference Recordings Aims At Your Hard Drive
By Jason Victor Serinus

January 5, 2008 — Reference Recordings, the Bay Area-based audiophile label founded by John T. "Tam" Henderson in 1976, has adopted a unique approach to computer and music server playback. Later this month, the company will begin to market what they call "HRx" discs. Incompatible with conventional optical disc players, these are data discs containing WAV files intended for playback on computer-based music servers. Each HRx is a digit-for-digit copy of an original Reference Recordings 24-bit/176.4kHz digital master. The format is slated for audition during this week's CES. It can be heard in the TAD, FIM, and Magico rooms at the Venetian, as well as in On a Higher Note's Vivid/Luxman suite at the Mirage. Actual HRx discs will be available soon thereafter.

"Like every record company, we have been frustrated knowing how wonderful our master tapes sound and what is lost when you transfer to CD," Reference Recordings Vice President Marcia Martin told Stereophile. "There are also losses when we transfer to LP, although those are different, and stem from mechanical issues you don't have with CDs.

"Now that computers have improved, and we have huge hard drives, lots of memory, fast downloads, and new servers, it has finally become possible and practical to offer the incredible sound we've been hearing all these years on the original masters. It may not be great for preamp manufacturers, but hard drive playback is the future of audio."

Reference Recordings has been at the forefront of high-quality sound ever since legendary audio designer and recording engineer "Prof." Keith O. Johnson came on board in 1978. Johnson, who co-developed the HDCD process, recorded the very first HDCD disc released by RR 16 years ago. He has also received no less than seven Grammy nominations for Best Engineered Album. The latest, for Garden Of Dreams from David Maslanka and the Dallas Wind Symphony (RR-108), could snatch Johnson and Reference Recordings a Grammy on February 10. RR has previously received Grammys for a recording of the Chicago Pro Musica and Domenic Argento's Casa Guidi with Frederica von Stade.

While some labels have opted to issue SACDs and/or DVD-As, Reference Recordings rejected that route some years back. "Everyone here thought DVD-A was the better format technically," says Martin. "It can sound close to our master tapes, which for about 10 years have been 24-bit/176.4 kHz. But the format never caught on because the DVD-A players that were being manufactured weren't really high-end. My husband Keith was asked to design a DVD-A player that would have done the format justice, but when the manufacturer, Spectral, was asked to sign an agreement that made the company liable should anyone successfully make a DVD-A copy from the player, Spectral and other high-end companies stayed away. As for SACD, our mastering engineer Paul Stubblebine felt the conversion to DSD changed the sound of our masters in a way we didn't like."

Reference Recordings therefore stuck with HDCD. Unfortunately, after Microsoft bought the rights to HDCD from Pacific Microsonics a few years back, it dropped development and support for the format. Fortunately, two of Johnson's dear friends and associates from those days, Michael Ritter and Pflash Pflaumer (who co-invented HDCD with Johnson), have since launched Berkeley Audio Design Associates, and have developed an Alpha DAC that Martin claims sounds better in some ways than Pacific Microsonics' no-longer-produced Model 2 HDCD encoder.

The Alpha DAC, which does not infringe on the HDCD patents that Microsoft now owns, will debut at CES this week. Used with a PC equipped with an expensive Lynx sound card commonly capable of outputting digital data sampled at 176.4kHz, the DAC will be used to demonstrate RR's HRx files. I asked what program will be used to play the files.

"We're only working with Windows XP, because Windows Vista is currently a disaster for audio," says Martin. "Vista tries to control and play files its way, which is not what we want. . . .Meanwhile, one of the programs we've been using is a free one called Media Monkey. It goes up to 24/176.4 without messing up and changing the files and bits."

Manufacturing HRx discs is an interim step to the eventual goal of making Reference Recordings' high-resolution masters available for direct download and for pre-loading into music servers. The download option hinges in large part on download time. Martin estimates that downloading a single album at 176.4kHz sample rate and 24-bit word lengths will take several hours. Lossless compression with FLAC is a possibility, but Reference wants to ensure that decoding programs using FLAC decoding will optimally handle their files before proceeding. In the meantime, Reference will offer HRx WAV files on disc. Most will be encoded at 24/176.4, although a few of RR's older 24/88.2 masters will also be distributed in HRx format.

The price of HRx discs has yet to be set. "Discs are a bit more trouble to create and distribute than downloads," says Martin. "We're trying to keep it user-friendly, while ensuring we make a profit and stay in business."

As far as I can tell, Reference Recordings is releasing the files free from DRM (Digital Rights Management), but this writer is concerned that the financial losses associated with unauthorized copying and distribution of files would seriously impact such a small company. [It is fair to note that Linn’s decision to make its high-resolution music files available without DRM does not appear to have had a negative effect, according to Ivor Tiefenbrun, with whom I discussed this subject just after the Christmas break.—John Atkinson]

In other developments, Reference Recordings is preparing to issue its first LPs in many a year. Paul Stubblebine is currently completing a facility that will be used for mastering the LPs, which, tentatively, will be pressed in Germany. First off the presses will be several of Reference's analog recordings that were never issued on LP. Shorter compositions may also be issued in 45rpm format. And, despite Marcia's reservations, a few SACDs will also be issued at the request of the label's Chinese distributor.

The article source:   http://www.stereophile.com/news/010508ref/

The Keith Johnson’s assosiative  new company:   http://www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com/index.html

mark wrote:

…for digital inputs they show aes,spdif,toslink and bada,which i understand is for use with the rr hrx 24/176?.

Which is just one line in, not multiple lines in. Also the have changed the 24/176 to 24/192

mark wrote:

also there is no clear indication that the attenuation is achieved in the digital domain.

Digital attenuation and balance control: 0.1dB/step with .05dB/step trim, 60dB range

mark wrote:

i talked to mr. ritter about this product and he claims it is in the same league of performance as the pacific microsonics.

Isn’t it what he suppose to be saying? Anyhow, the digital attenuation is something that I do not like in Pacific Microsonics I it just too auditable when I engage it. If the Moron broadcast a program with one level up or down for 2dB (as they frequently do) then what should I do on Pacific? It has gain change on ADC but it is via jumpers on the back of the unit – very inconvenient. Lavry AD122 – the save level ADC but it has small analog trimmers at front panel. Anyhow, I would like to learn if it is possible to defeat this digital attenuation in the Berkeley's DAC

Telstar wrote:

. Considering their pedigree alone, it's worth a listening.

Telstar, yes, you might be right. I do not know those peoples personally but I have opened my Pacific to serve the cooling fan and have seen HOW the unit was made. It is a quite astonishing how well, respectfully and I would say expensive the Pacific is done inside. Also, in a way unprecedented in history audio story how they stopped to produce those processors also encroaches respect.

However, being cynical jerk I know that there was no one known to me company who introduced any more or less worthy “follow up” product. Would the Berkeley’s new DAC be a mediocre quality “nothing special” that would juts cash out the team formers publicity? Would the Berkeley’s new DAC be an objectionable implementation that would utilize the newest components base? At this point no one knows as it was not know what was the objectives of the people who made the Berkeley’s new DAC.

I have heard 2 positive comments from a people who used the Berkeley Alfa DAC. One of them is in sales and obviously off any credentials. Another person is just a user who used reportedly the DAC at CES (prototype version), however I know that guy (Magico owner, Alon the Wolf ) and I know that he is a despiteful, shilling whore who enthusiastically would run his mouth about any subject.  So, there is a lot of unknowns…

Romy the Cat wrote:

I have heard 2 positive comments from a people who used the Berkeley Alfa DAC. One of them is in sales and obviously off any credentials. Another person is just a user who used reportedly the DAC at CES (prototype version), however I know that guy (Magico owner, Alon the Wolf ) and I know that he is a despiteful, shilling whore who enthusiastically would run his mouth about any subject.  So, there is a lot of unknowns…Rgs, the Cat

Here is for whoever interested a write up about Berkeley DAC

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/Berkeley-Audio-Design-Alpha-DAC-Review

I have to inform that the guy who wrote it kind of peculiar- he is one of those “industry dusk suckers” who brainlessly cheer up absolutely anything and have a perception of audio as he is a stupid used cars salesperson. In other words I call the people like him - the Idiots. I did not read the article carefully but in what I scanned I have found a number of factual errors. Anyhow, if you are interested about the Berkeley DAC then here is some information. The “review” gives a good illustration about the stupid hype is created by stupid people.

I admit that I had some interest to begin with when the Berkeley DAC was announced. I was told a year before Berkeley become available that thus guys are working on something new and I felt that whatever this team produces is worth to pay attention. When the Berkeley hit public I spoke with a person who I do respect (very few of them out there) who used both Berkeley and Pacific DAC about their differences. He was watchful, provided a positive feedback about Berkeley and claimed that they are different. Mind you that I am a big fun of Pacific DAC section. Pacific is exceptionally good 16 bit DAC but at higher rate and faster frequency I found the there are better sounding DACs.

I did not have and do not have any itch with digital and I am very comfortable with what it is but I use different DACs for CD transport and for DAW. Theoretically it would be nice to have just one DAC. The biggest motive for me was an ability to experiment with my DAW and USB connectors if the USB was properly done in Berkeley DAC. A few months ago, in August or July I believe, I packed up my Lavry 924 and my Digital cable and went to a person know who just got his new Berkeley DAC. I had opportunity to hear Lavry multibit and Berkeley side by side.

At that time I had two major intellectual disappointments with Berkeley DAC. Firs it had no USB connector a big blow. Second, it had digital volume control that instantaneously set the Berkeley DAC in the class of “good for idiots” category, putting all Berkeley’s demagogy about bit-perfect operation under doubts. Surely if to max out the Berkeley DAC attenuator then the digital volume would not be engaged and it might be a solution. However, Berkeley folks told me that they consider that the DAC sound its best a 5-6dB before the max out level and I founded is VERY suspicions.

How, the Berkeley DAC sounded relative to Lavry? I do not know. The playback I was playing it was horrendous and both of the DAC sound like crap. Which one was crappier? Who cares? Among anything the Berkeley DAC sound like it was a bit too new to list it – it was a week old. We had an agreement that is month of so what the DAC burn-in I would take it to my home. After a month past I decided not do it. I still had residual interest about the Berkeley DAC’s Sound but it was kind of minimized by a lock of USB and D-attenuator. I decided that even the majority of audio people who will be using the DAC are Morons (and the linked above Computer Audiophile is a wonderful illustration) but among them there is a few lucid individuals who might encourage the Berkeley people to work out their new DAC in better version. At that time I heard that Berkeley folks were working to address some bugs that were already found in this new DAC, so I would like to see Berkeley Audio Design Alpha MKII DAC with a properly implemented USB port. I would like also Berkeley people to have the digital volume control with some kind of internals jumper that would absolutely defeat it.

It is possible that Berkeley as is now a good sounding DAC but I think Berkeley folks need to work on it more to make it more making sense. I still watch what they do and when Berkeley MKII DAC with defeatable volume control and USB-like ability become available I will enthusiastically take another look at it.

manisandher wrote:

I received three Reference Recordings discs yesterday - 'Exotic Dances from the Opera', 'Rachmaninoff Symphonic Dances' and 'Dick Hyman Thinking of Bix'. I'm surprised that I actually like these (musically speaking) more than I thought I would. But playing around with RME's Digicheck again, I notice a steady rise in noise, with a -85dB peak at around 25KHz. This then drops quickly away. I'm no expert, but it looks like noise shaping has been used when recording these. Now why would this be necessary, if they were being recorded at 24/176? Or is this an unavoidable result of using delta-sigma chips in the A/D? I'm sure this has no effect on the sound... I'm just curious...

To whom it might be interested.

The Berkeley Audio DAC reportedly uses the Delta-Sigma Analog Devices’ DAC AD1955A. It is SACD compatible, with attenuation in the chip. I guess it might be obvious what might be the next revision of Berkeley DAC…  From another point of view the Berkeley folks are not the SACD promoters and they are more pure PCM fans, so they might not sell the soils to the devil…

Anyhow, to whoever cares - here is the datasheet.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/pdf/AD1955A_DAC.pdf

The DAC is around $20-%25 and it looks like is being used by a few hi-hi companies.