Link: Beresford TC-7510 bashing and Headfi Bashing? - Page 3

It's interesting when someone critisizes the Beresford hyperbole like I did, some people (especially from the UK) seem to get pissed off by it.
You're taking this way out of proportion. I was doing a suggestion. I gave arguments. It certainly doesn't mean that's the way it will have to be.

You have to be careful not to mix up matters.
No one has said the Beresford is no good. I say it once more: it's really good for its price range.
The point is Herandu has done excessive claims about the Beresford compared to high-end dacs. Is it strange then that someone steps up?

I am not the only person who have made such comments. On the hifiwigwam site there is even a thread that list many of high-end DACs that the Beresford can match or even beat. Those DACs were tested by the owners against the Beresford. Are you saying that the Chord, Stello, Benchmark, Linn, Meridain, Wadia, etc owners are all biased against their own more expensive DAC in favour of the Beresford?
To say it as it is: the latest MK6/3 is very likely to be the best sounding DAC in the world based on U$ for U$. The previous versions were good, but this one is streets ahead. Other manufacturers would have bumped their price up by two or more if they had such a sound coming from their latest DAC.

Got any links to people who prefer the 7510 to say a Wadia or Chord DAC?

Do a search at http://www.hifiwigwam.com/ and you should find all the info you need.

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum7/15325.html
When I search the last 10 pages of this thread for 'wadia' I find nothing at all.
Searching for 'chord':

page 18:
In my opinion there only is one DAC now worth considering (Beresford DAC that is - I'd swap this for a Chord any day!!!:^), and thats the latest one.

So he would swap his Beresford for a Chord. Not the other way around. Right?

page 14:
Alex likes it (and has, I think, placed an order - although not to replace his £2k Chord DAC64, but to go into a secondary system - I hope you don't mind me mentioning this, Alex
So just using the Beresford in a secondary system. Unknown what he thinks of it.

page 12:
Other people might have found different results - like the Senior guy on Zerogain who famously sold his Chord DAC64 for a Derek Shek NOS dac.

This is the only guy who sold his Chord. But not for a Beresford.

page 12: comparison between Chord and Mk6:
Poor bass - much improved. Now integrates perfectly well with the sub. Bass has more drive and definition about it generally. And is no longer blurred or out of time. On the dancy and rocky stuff it's also quite powerful. One quite distinct thing I did notice, however, was on a Katie Melua track (#7 first album) there is a deep accompaniment to the opening vocals of a double bass. This had distinctly greater presence and depth through the DAC64 than it did the Beresford. Having said that, the vocals themselves were beautifully reproduced (an improvement on the X-Ray alone).

Dynamics - I think the upped output voltage may well have sorted this out to a significant extent. The sound is no longer concentrated towards the speaker cones. Although it does still retain a slightly less 3D projection/image than the '64. And not quite the power and impact. Less involving than the DAC64 in this sense, but slightly better than the X-Ray. On the dancy stuff it was much more fun than the Mk III.

PRaT - Again, much improved. It's not quite up there with the DAC64 or some of the Naim/Densen kit I've tried at home, but it's no longer the slouch that I thought it was. And there is no longer a major contrast between the two. For 90% of listeners I would say it's certainly good enough, and perhaps the pay-offs of taking it further would compromise other aspects of the performance.

Muted high frequencies - Certainly no longer the case. There isn't that bold distinction between the Beresford and the X-Ray any longer, but having said that they still give different quite sonic signatures. The Beresford now seems very clear (almost etched) in the upper treble (hi-hat, cymbals, sparkly bits) whereas these details are present with the X-Ray in a more natural sense (perhaps this is how you went about improving the PRaT?). Personally speaking I rather like the presentation of this Beresford, but I can see how some might not (you have to be careful not to undermine the things that made it so appealing to someone like Jerry). In the midband too, the X-Ray has a more lush or colourful presentation where the Beresford is cleaner but slightly more gray sounding. A cool and detailed rather than warm and detailed sound.

UPDATE:
linn: no results
Benchmark: no results
Stello: 1 result: Stello easily bested the Beresford
Meridian: no results

Still nothing that proves the Beresford is better or on par with the high-end.
Other links?

AS1...I was referring to Herandu bashing not Beresford bashing. I have both a Beresford Mark 4 and a Lavry in use, and happen to like the Lavry by a long shot...to my ears and system.

There is no real limit on how long a person can listen to A before comparing to B in any of the tests I have read about. Is it possible to listen to a song that you are very familiar with on DAC A and then listen to it again with DAC B and decide which has the criteria you consider important in a DAC? Then it is possible to listen to a second song that has a different quality to see which sounds better with that song? And then a third and so on... If you cannot tell a difference after listening to several songs, is the $1000 DAC really worth 5 times more than the $200 DAC?

I am not asking for ABX scientic answers, not that it would hurt, but when someone says that A is more transparent, has deeper, tighter bass, has better separation for instruments, etc... is it too much to ask that the point it out under blind conditions to eliminate price driven bias? I guess so...

So why try improve the un-improvable?!

You make it sound easy but it isn't. I'll bet you a 100 to 1 that you cannot tell better than ~50% with your "song by song" method and I will make it easier on you. We'll play a level-matched boombox vs. anything you choose, both systems driving the same set of speakers. It's been done before...
It's also very unrealistic to ask hobbyists to conduct such tests before they post. That's why it's called a "subjective" assessment and why all should be taken "with a grain of salt", so to speak...
I've participated in one test which took an expert in psychoacoustics (he works in that field) to come up with the scheme. It includes a curtain to hide the setup and the control operator and also avoid the effect of long wires from a remote control room. Switching setups was always done in a fixed interval and to avoid masking the noise during that period and minimize sonic confusion we opted for "similar noise", which means that any time the operator switched components - even when in reality he played the same component again - he took connectors apart and put them back on.
This kind of switching avoided a switchbox, which may have introduced another variable into the equation. Now you tell me. Would you want to run such a test before you post an impression?
And guess what. You don't have to!
The result is known already. I'll put money on it!
Based on that result and your general statement, you should be playing your music on a boombox and not bother to post anything on this or any other audio forum. In the light of all of this, what you're saying amounts to "nothing matters and I don't care", hardly a constructive attitude to improving an "un-improvable" audio system...

I never said it had to be a scientific ABX test with an expert in psychoacoustics. However, a "casual" blind test is pretty easy to do with a switchbox and two Dacs. I have a post in this forum (Entech vs SRC2496) comparing two DACs in this manner.

My main point is that if you are going to give a detailed impression of how A beats B, you should be able to hear this over the course of several songs without knowing which is which...especially on your own system. My test subject could tell the difference between DACs on my system using this method. If you can't tell the difference between a boombox and a high end system, then I can't really say much about that.

I couldn't find a post with the description of your test. Perhaps you could tell gross differences in a short A/B test but that is very unlikely with a level-matched test between two credible non-defective units.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there are no differences. I'm saying it's really hard to pinpoint them.

After reading the numerous posts on this DAC i went and bought one on Sunday, was delivered Tuesday and have been listening to it for the past two days. Prior to this i was listening to a Creek Evo CD player through a Graham Slee Solo headphone amp, headphones are AKG701.

After this short period listening i've come to conclude that the Beresford is a good DAC for the money...but as yet i wouldn't say it's great or better than the Evo DAC. My grumble at this point is that the sibilance from the Beresford is pretty bad...whether this smooths out after time remains to be seen. Detail retrieval is not as good with the Beresford either with the Evo again stealing the show.

Here is the link. I did not mention it in the thread, but the way she graded the sound for those categories tested was on a 1-10 scale (10 being the best). I doubt that the Entech is broken because it sounds fine when there is nothing to compare it to. I still have it working in my bedroom system and it does a great job with cetain types of music (as I mentioned in the link).

Her impressions are strictly of a blind nature because she did not know that I was testing DACs. She only knew that I was comparing A and B. However, even if this test does not meet ABX standards, I found it very helpful when determining which DAC I wanted in the living room. I would find other comparisons much more credible if they would even do this much in their comparisons.

Now if I was testing cables, I doubt she would have heard a difference at all. That is why I am not taking the Amazing Randi up on his cable challenge anytime soon. Of course if I failed, I would just say the equipment must be broke...

If A and B are not randomly switched then the test is invalid. We might not remember sonic details but we remember too darn well what we thought of each before...
Try it with her again and play only A but tell her that you're switching from A to B...

"A" was not always Entech or SRC2496 during the test. I switched them around... I may need to post the exact process I went through when creating the spreadsheets for the test, but in general, I tested each song individually for each attribute that I was interested in. For some songs A was Entech and for others it was SRC2496. I kept track on my sheet of which song had Entech as A and which song had Entech as B. At the end, I compiled the results comparing her results with my spreadsheet.