DAC Magic Vs Beresford 7520

[admin_exported]

Guys

Can't really decide between the 2, might get the chance to audition them, but in the meantime any opinions on these. I have already read praises for both but just wondering which would work better in my system. I'm tempted with the Beresford as it's a fair bit cheaper, but the CA looks much nicer. The specs seem very similar. I use mainly WMA standard and WMA lossless.

Cheers

Chief

 

[John Duncan]

I went for the looks.....

 

[Gerrardasnails]

chiefbrody:Guys

Can't really decide between the 2, might get the chance to audition them, but in the meantime any opinions on these. I have already read praises for both but just wondering which would work better in my system. I'm tempted with the Beresford as it's a fair bit cheaper, but the CA looks much nicer. The specs seem very similar. I use mainly WMA standard and WMA lossless.

Cheers

Chief

It seems that anyone who has a DM loves it and anyone who has a Beresford loves it!

For me, my amp has balanced (XLR) connectivity, as does the DM and it's from a proper company with a good history of producing, and my amp is made by the same company. And, it looks much nicer. And the two mags that I buy both gave it product of the year.

I can't talk for the Beresford but with Lossless files (I use WMA Lossless), it will blow your CD73 away.

 

[Anonymous]

Gerrardasnails:chiefbrody:Guys

Can't really decide between the 2, might get the chance to audition them, but in the meantime any opinions on these. I have already read praises for both but just wondering which would work better in my system. I'm tempted with the Beresford as it's a fair bit cheaper, but the CA looks much nicer. The specs seem very similar. I use mainly WMA standard and WMA lossless.

Cheers

Chief

It seems that anyone who has a DM loves it and anyone who has a Beresford loves it!

For me, my amp has balanced (XLR) connectivity, as does the DM and it's from a proper company with a good history of producing, and my amp is made by the same company. And, it looks much nicer. And the two mags that I buy both gave it product of the year.

I can't talk for the Beresford but with Lossless files (I use WMA Lossless), it will blow your CD73 away.

Thanks guys

I must admit the CA does look the part and i am very tempted. Have you had much experience with standard WMA 192kpbs, just because most of my music is ripped at 193k for the moment? I don't mind re-ripping but would just like to know what to expect.

Cheers

 

[John Duncan]

I've listened to 128k mp3 compared to apple lossless, blind tested, and couldn't say which was better. Simple music though, which may have a bearing.

 

[Anonymous]

It has a massive bearing

 

[Craig M.]

i found the dacmagic more full bodied then the beresford, and to me a bit flatter on dynamics.

 

[Anonymous]

There is a brilliant DIY upgrade path if you get the beresford and loads of personal customer support.

Is it more £ on looks, less on sound with the cambridge?

Haven't heard the cambridge but I looove the beresford!

Don't think you can go far wrong with either.

 

[Anonymous]

So you still have the Beresford then Craig?

 

[Craig M.]

yes, i'm going to upgrade but am waiting until i get my new speakers before deciding what to get. at the moment i have in mind either cyrus cdxtse/dacx or benchmark dac1 and a used cdp from ebay.

 

[John Duncan]

hi fi newbie:It has a massive bearing

Yes, I imagine it does. It wasn't *that* simple though - still 800kbps in lossless.....

 

[chebby]

I was pleased to find my Beresford TC-7520 keeps up very well with my new CD player. (I was a little worried the Beresford would be outclassed).

I am happy to alternate between them.

 

[Anonymous]

JohnDuncan:I've listened to 128k mp3 compared to apple lossless, blind tested, and couldn't say which was better. Simple music though, which may have a bearing.

I managed to have the same piece of music in 128 and lossless, usually a free download prompting purchase of the album and in some blind tests my wife could tell the difference most of the time, but the lossless was around 1000k. A mix of tv on the radio, David Bryne and Eno and Fleet Foxes. 320 was harder to tell, but for the file size difference I'm now lossless. topping out at 1117kbps for Colours by The Prodigy.

 

[John Duncan]

Oh yeah I'm slowly getting round to upgrading my old library (from when my hard disk was 8gig, and that was huge). Top rate is 1169 (AC/DC - Smash 'n' Grab from Black Ice).

 

[chebby]

JohnDuncan:Oh yeah I'm slowly getting round to upgrading my old library (from when my hard disk was 8gig, and that was huge). Top rate is 1169 (AC/DC - Smash 'n' Grab from Black Ice).

Go AIFF rather than ALAC and you will get 1411 kbps (I got that on a Mobile Fidelity Sound labs Gold CD of Santana's Abraxas when I tried out AIFF the other day.)

 

[Anonymous]

Chief,

You've asked which of the two DACs will work better in your system without saying just how you would use it. You list an Arcam CD and also mention ripped files. So do you expect to use the DAC both as an upgrade to your CDP and for PC based audio?

Honestly, I think you can only tell which is best if you listen to both in your own system.

For what it's worth, I went for the TC-7520. I needed a decent headphone stage, I had doubts about the CA's use of upsampling and the TC-7520 offers the extra possibility of acting as a preamp. Using the TC-7520 as a preamp and connecting via USB you can by pass any software volume control or mixing (well in Linux anyway) and have finger tip control at the DAC itself. Just feed the preamp DAC output into the tape input of an integrated amp. No need for an amp with a remote volume control, and if you want you could use a power amp. I wonder what a Quad power amp sounds like if feed by a TC-7520?

 

[John Duncan]

chebby:
JohnDuncan:Oh yeah I'm slowly getting round to upgrading my old library (from when my hard disk was 8gig, and that was huge). Top rate is 1169 (AC/DC - Smash 'n' Grab from Black Ice).

Go AIFF rather than ALAC and you will get 1411 kbps (I got that on a Mobile Fidelity Sound labs Gold CD of Santana's Abraxas when I tried out AIFF the other day.)

Yeah but that's only cos it's fixed bitrate (same as WAV), I thought. I don't think AIFF and ALAC makes any difference (but I'm in on my own tonight...)

 

[chebby]

JohnDuncan:Yeah but that's only cos it's fixed bitrate (same as WAV), I thought. I don't think AIFF and ALAC makes any difference (but I'm in on my own tonight...)

I have only done AIFF on the one album to try it. Everything else is either ALAC or 256k AAC or 320k AAC

 

[Anonymous]

BrightSpark:
Chief,

You've asked which of the two DACs will work better in your system without saying just how you would use it. You list an Arcam CD and also mention ripped files. So do you expect to use the DAC both as an upgrade to your CDP and for PC based audio?

Honestly, I think you can only tell which is best if you listen to both in your own system.

For what it's worth, I went for the TC-7520. I needed a decent headphone stage, I had doubts about the CA's use of upsampling and the TC-7520 offers the extra possibility of acting as a preamp. Using the TC-7520 as a preamp and connecting via USB you can by pass any software volume control or mixing (well in Linux anyway) and have finger tip control at the DAC itself. Just feed the preamp DAC output into the tape input of an integrated amp. No need for an amp with a remote volume control, and if you want you could use a power amp. I wonder what a Quad power amp sounds like if feed by a TC-7520?

Cheers for the info.

I intend to use it for my Laptop, which i have ripped all my Cd's to. It is not intended to replace my CD player, but i thought i could also try using the Arcam as a transport only just to see if this sounded better than my CD73 on it's own. If it sounds better then great, but if not i can just use it for my WMA files. Some people have said previously that it/they will sound better than my Arcam outright, and others have said that there will probably not be much, if any sound benefit from using the Arcam as a transport. The way i see it, is that i have nothing to lose as i don't intend on selling/replacing my CD player outright, with a DAC. I still like playing CD's too, just not all the time.

 

[Gerrardasnails]

chebby:
JohnDuncan:Oh yeah I'm slowly getting round to upgrading my old library (from when my hard disk was 8gig, and that was huge). Top rate is 1169 (AC/DC - Smash 'n' Grab from Black Ice).

Go AIFF rather than ALAC and you will get 1411 kbps (I got that on a Mobile Fidelity Sound labs Gold CD of Santana's Abraxas when I tried out AIFF the other day.)

Yep, WMA Lossless all my cd's are 1411kbps and I have albums made up from dvd at 2116kbps.

 

[Anonymous]

Chief,

If the DAC is for laptop use then you'll want the USB connection. I'd be inclined to pick the Beresford as you get a pretty good headphone amp too which could be useful for portable audio. It may not be a pretty as the CA DAC but it's a neat box and I'd say bit more portable. You wouldn't be disappointed with the quality of the TC--7520's USB implimentation. Sounds even better when the stock OpAmps are swapped for a pair of LM4562NA.

 

[Anonymous]

BrightSpark:
Chief,

If the DAC is for laptop use then you'll want the USB connection. I'd be inclined to pick the Beresford as you get a pretty good headphone amp too which could be useful for portable audio. It may not be a pretty as the CA DAC but it's a neat box and I'd say bit more portable. You wouldn't be disappointed with the quality of the TC--7520's USB implimentation. Sounds even better when the stock OpAmps are swapped for a pair of LM4562NA.

Cheers BrightSpark

I believe both DAC's have a USB input, but i thought i had read somewhere that the USB input is not as good as the Optical/Coaxial. Is this to do with sample rates etc and is it true?

Cheers

 

[Gerrardasnails]

chiefbrody:BrightSpark:
Chief,

If the DAC is for laptop use then you'll want the USB connection. I'd be inclined to pick the Beresford as you get a pretty good headphone amp too which could be useful for portable audio. It may not be a pretty as the CA DAC but it's a neat box and I'd say bit more portable. You wouldn't be disappointed with the quality of the TC--7520's USB implimentation. Sounds even better when the stock OpAmps are swapped for a pair of LM4562NA.

Cheers BrightSpark

I believe both DAC's have a USB input, but i thought i had read somewhere that the USB input is not as good as the Optical/Coaxial. Is this to do with sample rates etc and is it true?

Cheers

If your pc/laptop gives you the option of coaxial or optical (most now have optical), I would use that. It's up to what you need. I don't need a headphone amp and the DM is just as portable as the Beresford (you even get a stand to keep it vertical if you want). As I've said before, this mag gave the DM the edge over the Beresford, as did another well known mag, which also gave the DM their product (in all categories) of the year.

 

[chebby]

Gerrardasnails:As I've said before, this mag gave the DM the edge over the Beresford, as did another well known mag, which also gave the DM their product (in all categories) of the year.

That was comparing the DM to the original Beresford TC-7510.

The new Beresford TC-7520 is a whole other design (and not a TC-7510 with a USB 'bolted' on)

I use the optical and the USB (for different purposes) and they compare extremely well. USB on the Beresford TC-7520 even gets it's own seperate clock.

When I first got the TC-7520 I tested it on our iMac 20" with iTunes lossless via both USB and optical (with minijack adaptor that cost me £4.99) and there was no perceptible difference. My laptop (with USB) is my normal iTunes 'host' and the iMac is in a different room and used as a 'general purpose' family machine but I thought I would do the test anyway just to see if all the Mac/optical hype was true.

It was not (so long as you take care to optimise both system's settings properly.)

 

[Anonymous]

BrightSpark:
I wonder what a Quad power amp sounds like if fed by a TC-7520?

An interesting possibility.....anyone tried it?