Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic: my findings so far

[admin_exported]

I've been a/b testing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic all afternoon with several types of music, all in Apple lossless format from my Macbook. I came to the following tentative conclusions:

Both DACs have strengths and weaknesses. I think the Beresford is more even sounding (and can sound a bit ‘dull’ compared to the DAC Magic), but it’s faster, and it has a wider soundstage. The DAC Magic sounds livelier in comparison with more bass and treble.

Initially the DAC Magic sounds ‘clearer’ and brighter - my partner thought it was much clearer sounding than the Beresford – but I disagree. In my view the extra bass makes the DAC Magic sound less transparent, i.e., it's harder to follow what each instrument is doing.

I’ll post again as I continue to listen. Any comments or questions are welcome

 

[Anonymous]

hi debt_collector

Is your tc-7520 using the stock opamp or has it been upgraded with the LM4562NA.

This is a really interesting comparison to make, thanks for doing this

 

[Anonymous]

zzgavin:
hi debt_collector

Is your tc-7520 using the stock opamp or has it been upgraded with the LM4562NA.

This is a really interesting comparison to make, thanks for doing this

I'm using the stock op amp. A pair of LM4562NA have been ordered! Those of you who upgraded the op amp, what difference did it make to the sound of th DAC? A detailed response will be grately appreciated!

 

[Gerrardasnails]

debt_collector:I've been a/b testing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic all afternoon with several types of music, all in Apple lossless format from my Macbook. I came to the following tentative conclusions:

Both DACs have strengths and weaknesses. I think the Beresford is more even sounding (and can sound a bit 'dull' compared to the DAC Magic), but it's faster, and it has a wider soundstage. The DAC Magic sounds livelier in comparison with more bass and treble.

Initially the DAC Magic sounds 'clearer' and brighter - my partner thought it was much clearer sounding than the Beresford - but I disagree. In my view the extra bass makes the DAC Magic sound less transparent, i.e., it's harder to follow what each instrument is doing.

I'll post again as I continue to listen. Any comments or questions are welcome

Out of interest, are you connecting both DACs to your amp with RCA or are you using XLR cables with the DM? I know the Beresford doesn't have XLR connectivity but my amp does and I believe that the DM benefits from this.

 

[Johnno2]

What about the different filter settings on the DM did you just use the standard 'linear'

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:I've been a/b testing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic all afternoon with several types of music, all in Apple lossless format from my Macbook. I came to the following tentative conclusions:

Both DACs have strengths and weaknesses. I think the Beresford is more even sounding (and can sound a bit 'dull' compared to the DAC Magic), but it's faster, and it has a wider soundstage. The DAC Magic sounds livelier in comparison with more bass and treble.

Initially the DAC Magic sounds 'clearer' and brighter - my partner thought it was much clearer sounding than the Beresford - but I disagree. In my view the extra bass makes the DAC Magic sound less transparent, i.e., it's harder to follow what each instrument is doing.

I'll post again as I continue to listen. Any comments or questions are welcome

Out of interest, are you connecting both DACs to your amp with RCA or are you using XLR cables with the DM? I know the Beresford doesn't have XLR connectivity but my amp does and I believe that the DM benefits from this.

I connected the dac magic via the xlr connection and compared it to the beresford which as you say has only unbalanced rca connections. I plan to have another listen tonight and comapre the two dacs using the rca connections in both. i'll report later

 

[Anonymous]

Johnno2:What about the different filter settings on the DM did you just use the standard 'linear'
I used the standard linear phase filter. The other two settings didn't sound as good but I hadn't the time to comapre this aspect of the dac magic's performance

 

[Gerrardasnails]

debt_collector:Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:I've been a/b testing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic all afternoon with several types of music, all in Apple lossless format from my Macbook. I came to the following tentative conclusions:

Both DACs have strengths and weaknesses. I think the Beresford is more even sounding (and can sound a bit 'dull' compared to the DAC Magic), but it's faster, and it has a wider soundstage. The DAC Magic sounds livelier in comparison with more bass and treble.

Initially the DAC Magic sounds 'clearer' and brighter - my partner thought it was much clearer sounding than the Beresford - but I disagree. In my view the extra bass makes the DAC Magic sound less transparent, i.e., it's harder to follow what each instrument is doing.

I'll post again as I continue to listen. Any comments or questions are welcome

Out of interest, are you connecting both DACs to your amp with RCA or are you using XLR cables with the DM? I know the Beresford doesn't have XLR connectivity but my amp does and I believe that the DM benefits from this.

I connected the dac magic via the xlr connection and compared it to the beresford which as you say has only unbalanced rca connections. I plan to have another listen tonight and comapre the two dacs using the rca connections in both. i'll report later

I'm shocked that the Beresford is as good/better when you are using XLR cables with the DM. Then again, I love the sound of my set up and I think the Beresford looks like something that we made in CDT at school, so I would not buy it regardless.

 

[Anonymous]

I've been comparing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic for a couple of hours this evening. The DAC magic has been run-in for a couple of days now but the Beresford has been going for a bit longer.
The Beresford sounds better when comparing the two dacs on an even playing field, i.e both are connected via the unbalanced rca output. The Beresford sound fuller and the soundstage is wider, it's faster and dynamics is better. The balance of power changes when connecting the DAC magic via the balanced xlr output. The dac magic comes to life and leaves the Beresford TC-7520 slightly behind. When connected via the xlr output, the dac magic becomes the more pleasing and dynamics improve.
My conclusion so far: if you have an pre-amp with a balanced input, get the dac amgic, it deos enough to win my vote. if you have only unbalanced RCA inputs, than get the Beresford TC-7520.

 

[chebby]

Wait for the postman.

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:I've been a/b testing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic all afternoon with several types of music, all in Apple lossless format from my Macbook. I came to the following tentative conclusions:

Both DACs have strengths and weaknesses. I think the Beresford is more even sounding (and can sound a bit 'dull' compared to the DAC Magic), but it's faster, and it has a wider soundstage. The DAC Magic sounds livelier in comparison with more bass and treble.

Initially the DAC Magic sounds 'clearer' and brighter - my partner thought it was much clearer sounding than the Beresford - but I disagree. In my view the extra bass makes the DAC Magic sound less transparent, i.e., it's harder to follow what each instrument is doing.

I'll post again as I continue to listen. Any comments or questions are welcome

Out of interest, are you connecting both DACs to your amp with RCA or are you using XLR cables with the DM? I know the Beresford doesn't have XLR connectivity but my amp does and I believe that the DM benefits from this.

I connected the dac magic via the xlr connection and compared it to the beresford which as you say has only unbalanced rca connections. I plan to have another listen tonight and comapre the two dacs using the rca connections in both. i'll report later

I'm shocked that the Beresford is as good/better when you are using XLR cables with the DM. Then again, I love the sound of my set up and I think the Beresford looks like something that we made in CDT at school, so I would not buy it regardless.

I've been comparing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic for a couple of hours this evening. The DAC magic has been run-in for a bit longer, couple of days now but the Beresford has been going for a bit longer.
The Beresford sounds better when comparing the two dacs on an even playing field, i.e both are connected via the unbalanced rca output. The Beresford sound fuller and the soundstage is wider, it's faster and dynamics is better. The balance of power changes when connecting the DAC magic via the balanced xlr output. The dac magic comes to life and leaves the Beresford TC-7520 slightly behind. When connected via the xlr output, the dac magic becomes the more pleasing and dynamics improve.
My conclusion so far: if you have an pre-amp with a balanced input, get the dac amgic, it deos enough to win my vote. if you have only unbalanced RCA inputs, than get the Beresford TC-7520.

 

[Alec]

Gerrardasnails:the Beresford looks like something that we made in CDT at school, so I would not buy it regardless.

Um...Quite right too...

 

[chebby]

Gerrardasnails:the Beresford looks like something that we made in CDT at school, so I would not buy it regardless.

Despite the DacMagic looking like Cambridge Audio successfully hunted down the only metal that looks like plastic pretending to be metal and looking like a Cubist snail with that daft 'foot'

- I would still have bought one if I had liked the sound of my friend's one. (Connected via XLR to his Primare i30). No matter. He likes it which is what matters.

I am sure CA will not grieve over the loss of one sale.

DC, just wait till those LM4562NA's arrive.

Gerrard, have you seen the TC-7520 in the err.. metal? It is not bad in a miniature 1980s Audiolab sort of way. I made a wind tunnel in CDT and that was not very good looking but it worked great. In fact it blew! (I had to say it before someone else did.)

 

[Gerrardasnails]

chebby:
Gerrardasnails:the Beresford looks like something that we made in CDT at school, so I would not buy it regardless.

Despite the DacMagic looking like Cambridge Audio successfully hunted down the only metal that looks like plastic pretending to be metal and looking like a Cubist snail with that daft 'foot'

- I would still have bought one if I had liked the sound of my friend's one. (Connected via XLR to his Primare i30). No matter. He likes it which is what matters.

I am sure CA will not grieve over the loss of one sale.

DC, just wait till those LM4562NA's arrive.

Gerrard, have you seen the TC-7520 in the err.. metal? It is not bad in a miniature 1980s Audiolab sort of way. I made a wind tunnel in CDT and that was not very good looking but it worked great. In fact it blew! (I had to say it before someone else did.)

To be fair Chebby, I haven't seen one in the "flesh" and I'm only going by the pics I've seen.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

debt_collector:Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:I've been a/b testing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic all afternoon with several types of music, all in Apple lossless format from my Macbook. I came to the following tentative conclusions:

Both DACs have strengths and weaknesses. I think the Beresford is more even sounding (and can sound a bit 'dull' compared to the DAC Magic), but it's faster, and it has a wider soundstage. The DAC Magic sounds livelier in comparison with more bass and treble.

Initially the DAC Magic sounds 'clearer' and brighter - my partner thought it was much clearer sounding than the Beresford - but I disagree. In my view the extra bass makes the DAC Magic sound less transparent, i.e., it's harder to follow what each instrument is doing.

I'll post again as I continue to listen. Any comments or questions are welcome

Out of interest, are you connecting both DACs to your amp with RCA or are you using XLR cables with the DM? I know the Beresford doesn't have XLR connectivity but my amp does and I believe that the DM benefits from this.

I connected the dac magic via the xlr connection and compared it to the beresford which as you say has only unbalanced rca connections. I plan to have another listen tonight and comapre the two dacs using the rca connections in both. i'll report later

I'm shocked that the Beresford is as good/better when you are using XLR cables with the DM. Then again, I love the sound of my set up and I think the Beresford looks like something that we made in CDT at school, so I would not buy it regardless.

I've been comparing the Beresford TC-7520 vs. DAC Magic for a couple of hours this evening. The DAC magic has been run-in for a bit longer, couple of days now but the Beresford has been going for a bit longer.
The Beresford sounds better when comparing the two dacs on an even playing field, i.e both are connected via the unbalanced rca output. The Beresford sound fuller and the soundstage is wider, it's faster and dynamics is better. The balance of power changes when connecting the DAC magic via the balanced xlr output. The dac magic comes to life and leaves the Beresford TC-7520 slightly behind. When connected via the xlr output, the dac magic becomes the more pleasing and dynamics improve.
My conclusion so far: if you have an pre-amp with a balanced input, get the dac amgic, it deos enough to win my vote. if you have only unbalanced RCA inputs, than get the Beresford TC-7520.

Interesting. One of the reasons I went for the DM is that as my amp gave balanced options, I wanted to try XLR out. A cd player with XLR inputs tend to be circa £1k for starters (apart from the CA players). I use Chorus 2, are you using the Anthems?

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails, are u asking whether i use the anthem 2 interconects? When comparing the two dacs with rca cables, i used two pairs of chord company cobra 3 interconnects (I have only one set of Anthem 2)

 

[Gerrardasnails]

debt_collector:Gerrardasnails, are u asking whether i use the anthem 2 interconects? When comparing the two dacs with rca cables, i used two pairs of chord company cobra 3 interconnects (I have only one set of Anthem 2)

No, I was asking which XLR cables you were using with the DM.

 

[Anonymous]

I am no expert in balanced connections however are we not missing a couple of very important points here?

1. To obtain a benefit from a balanced connection you need a truly balanced design between the pieces of kit you are connecting. The Bryston I would imagine is fully balanced but I can't see the DacMagic being a fully balanced design - there is likely to be a RCA to XLR converter built into the DacMagic. In that case you could simply attach one of these converters on the outside of the 7520 to achieve the same effect.

2. Isn't it the case that the gain with a balanced connector is set 6db (at least it is on the Cyrus gear) higher and therefore the increase in dynamics is simply due to higher volume thus to compare the DacMagic via XLR with 7520 using RCA you would need to increase the volume for the 7520 for a like for like comparison.

Therefore design wise the DacMagic XLR connector should not result in a higher quality signal and any apparent improvement is probably just due to loudness.

 

[John Duncan]

Grimaldi:I am no expert in balanced connections however are we not missing a couple of very important points here?

1. To obtain a benefit from a balanced connection you need a truly balanced design between the pieces of kit you are connecting. The Bryston I would imagine is fully balanced but I can't see the DacMagic being a fully balanced design - there is likely to be a RCA to XLR converter built into the DacMagic. In that case you could simply attach one of these converters on the outside of the 7520 to achieve the same effect.

2. Isn't it the case that the gain with a balanced connector is set 6db (at least it is on the Cyrus gear) higher and therefore the increase in dynamics is simply due to higher volume thus to compare the DacMagic via XLR with 7520 using RCA you would need to increase the volume for the 7520 for a like for like comparison.

Therefore design wise the DacMagic XLR connector should not result in a higher quality signal and any apparent improvement is probably just due to loudness.

Speculation really - I think it's proper balanced, like. Maybe Cambridge CEO can answer...

 

[chebby]

Cambridge Audio claim a balanced XLR connection is used....

"Once upsampled, the DacMagic offers both unbalanced RCA and balanced XLR outputs for the best quality analogue transfer."

I guess we have to accept that unless someone qualified can take one apart and prove otherwise.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

"The Bryston I would imagine is fully balanced but I can't see the DacMagic being a fully balanced design - there is likely to be a RCA to XLR converter built into the DacMagic.", that is an assumption and a half!

 

[Gerrardasnails]

JohnDuncan:Grimaldi:I am no expert in balanced connections however are we not missing a couple of very important points here?

1. To obtain a benefit from a balanced connection you need a truly balanced design between the pieces of kit you are connecting. The Bryston I would imagine is fully balanced but I can't see the DacMagic being a fully balanced design - there is likely to be a RCA to XLR converter built into the DacMagic. In that case you could simply attach one of these converters on the outside of the 7520 to achieve the same effect.

2. Isn't it the case that the gain with a balanced connector is set 6db (at least it is on the Cyrus gear) higher and therefore the increase in dynamics is simply due to higher volume thus to compare the DacMagic via XLR with 7520 using RCA you would need to increase the volume for the 7520 for a like for like comparison.

Therefore design wise the DacMagic XLR connector should not result in a higher quality signal and any apparent improvement is probably just due to loudness.

Speculation really - I think it's proper balanced, like. Maybe Cambridge CEO can answer...

From the manual,

"The DacMagic also features true balanced (XLR) outputs. This is a higher quality output that can
reject noise and interference with equipment with balanced inputs. These balanced outputs are
ideally suited for connection to the Cambridge Audio 840A or 840E amplifiers.".

Now, true balanced XLR outputs sounds good to me!

 

[Anonymous]

I think it was a reasonable assumption to make as most kit carrying XLR connectors simply use a converter and are not actually balanced in their internal design (you would typically have to spend at least £2k to get a fully balanced design. Perhaps the DacMagic is actually balanced if it is based on a high spec CA product given VFM with CA.

In any case, its possible that the increase in perceived dynamics is simply due to the higher gain. There should be little benefit from using balanced over a short connection anyway.

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails:debt_collector:Gerrardasnails, are u asking whether i use the anthem 2 interconects? When comparing the two dacs with rca cables, i used two pairs of chord company cobra 3 interconnects (I have only one set of Anthem 2)

No, I was asking which XLR cables you were using with the DM.
Ah. I was using plain Adam Hall XLR microphone cables, nothing exotic.

 

[chebby]

So without getting bogged down with the minutiae of XLR cables, what is the balance so far?

I think you concluded that with RCA connection the Beresford TC-7520 had a slight edge over the DM and that (where available in a user's system) true balanced XLR connection gives the DM the edge.

Are we now waiting for the final conclusion of what happens to the balance of opinion after the LM4562NA opamps are fitted? (I don't recall you saying they been fitted yet. I think you said they are on order.)

I predict a draw. (If you discount the additional facility to use the TC-7520 as a digital pre-amp and/or headphone amp and it's £45 price advantage and the minor matter of aesthetics.)