Beresford TC-7520 Review (DAC)

[Frank Dernie]

And so with headphones/earphones this effect is prominent.

I can understand this may be the case but with speakers I am in agreement with @Francis Vaughan and because of positioning, not reflections.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I can understand this may be the case but with speakers I am in agreement with @Francis Vaughan and because of positioning, not reflections.

I would say both.

 

[Koeitje]

Thanks!

Btw: never heard of this brand before.

There used to be a lot of hype around this DAC back in 2009/2010.

 

[JohnYang1997]

There used to be a lot of hype around this DAC back in 2009/2010.

12 years ago. I was in the primary school in 2009.

 

[martin900]

Beresford was all the hype EVERYWHERE back then and it was one of the most affordable. Times changed.
I remember countless threads on modding the 7520, then the Caiman and Gatorized came out but it was already at the downfall of Beresford. Then came the MF M1 and the Audiolab M-DAC.

Still, it would be great to see what this design can do with a decent PSU and modern high speed op-amps (unless they'd oscillate).
It seems quite well built: https://www.headfonia.com/beresford-tc-7520-unboxing/

 

[AndreaT]

Another flawed DAC from another Era. Aren't we happy to live at a time when electronic digital quality is flawless and way less expensive? I remember my disappointment in 1985, when a very expensive Marantz CD player could not sound better (and did sound much worse) than a source with Empire 208/Shure V15 III after my small savings were spent for a DG double CD of West Side Story. The double LP was better in many ways. I wonder what Amir test would have shown back then.

 

[Robin L]

I wonder what value [if any] there is in measuring any DAC that's 12 years old or older. On the one hand, it is good to know the performance of legacy gear. On the other, it is very easy to predict that a DAC that's 12 years old will under-perform compared to something modern, cheap and properly designed. The Topping E30 is a fine example of something that's cheap and performs near the limit of what we can hear. A review of something like Mark Levinson's TOTL designs of thirty years ago might be useful as a reference, but the gap between that and a modern DAC is probably unbridgable, certainly not cost effective.

 

[DSJR]

I remember the Beresford dacs which followed were among the first less expensive models to have far better supply immunity and other tweaks which are now taken for granted. Not sure the Gator or Caiman updates to the output side would make any difference to the fundamental measurements here though.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Another flawed DAC from another Era. Aren't we happy to live at a time when electronic digital quality is flawless and way less expensive? I remember my disappointment in 1985, when a very expensive Marantz CD player could not sound better (and did sound much worse) than a source with Empire 208/Shure V15 III after my small savings were spent for a DG double CD of West Side Story. The double LP was better in many ways. I wonder what Amir test would have shown back then.

My guess is that it would have been fine but that your then system had been balanced around the FR of your cartridge and so a flat source sounded either unfamiliar or wrong to you.
In reality the improvements in digital replay since the early days has actually been quite modest and even the earliest digital recorders were (probably) audibly transparent since even an early very anti-digital manufacturer was unable to tell the old Sony PCM-F1 system from a straightforward interconnect.

 

[Herbert]

My Sony CDP-101 has 11 microseconds delay. Would be great if this very first consumer player would be reviewed, but
frankly mine is just too precious to be shipped. But a 12 years old DAC will probably perform as well as a new one.
And the mentioned „expensive Marantz“
will nevertheless have sounded as „good“
as the record player if it would have been fed with a homemade digital copy of the „West Side Story“ record.

 

[Count Arthur]

Wasn't the main Beresford cult The Art of Sound website?

Yes, I remember coming across quite a few Beresford modding articles a while back: https://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?3058-Collection-of-mods-for-Beresford-TC-7520

It would be interesting to measure the effects of some of the popular mods floating around the forums to see if they have any appreciable effect. I suspect a fair few hobbyists don't have access to sophisticated measuring equipment and swap out components "blind", simply exchanging capacitors, resistors and op amps more expensive parts of equivalent value.

 

[dmac6419]

I am posting them as I am doing them.

Don't stop,you must be on vacay lol

 

[Katji]

I wonder what value [if any] there is in measuring any DAC that's 12 years old or older. On the one hand, it is good to know the performance of legacy gear. On the other, it is very easy to predict that a DAC that's 12 years old will under-perform compared to something modern, cheap and properly designed. The Topping E30 is a fine example of something that's cheap and performs near the limit of what we can hear. A review of something like Mark Levinson's TOTL designs of thirty years ago might be useful as a reference, but the gap between that and a modern DAC is probably unbridgable, certainly not cost effective.

Just that we can learn something, and get a better understanding of why so many people prefer their old DACs and so on.


... And to further confuse the people who think the reviews are or should be consumer buyers' guide reviews.

 

[Trell]

I wonder what value [if any] there is in measuring any DAC that's 12 years old or older. On the one hand, it is good to know the performance of legacy gear. On the other, it is very easy to predict that a DAC that's 12 years old will under-perform compared to something modern, cheap and properly designed. The Topping E30 is a fine example of something that's cheap and performs near the limit of what we can hear. A review of something like Mark Levinson's TOTL designs of thirty years ago might be useful as a reference, but the gap between that and a modern DAC is probably unbridgable, certainly not cost effective.

But will it be audibly different enough to warrant an upgrade, assuming the difference is for the better, which certainly is not a given? Why buy something new that sounds exactly the same when you could spend that money on women, wine and songs?

 

[magicscreen]

With a SINAD that misses the 16 bit mark

Bigger problem that there is no DAC which can play 24 bit.
So you cannot listen to Hi-Res music.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Beresford always seemed to me to be little more than a reseller/relabeler of cheap OEM gear. Is that correct?

 

[MerlinGS]

Another flawed DAC from another Era. Aren't we happy to live at a time when electronic digital quality is flawless and way less expensive? I remember my disappointment in 1985, when a very expensive Marantz CD player could not sound better (and did sound much worse) than a source with Empire 208/Shure V15 III after my small savings were spent for a DG double CD of West Side Story. The double LP was better in many ways. I wonder what Amir test would have shown back then.

The diffenreces were most likely related to mastering. I would not be surprised if you could not tell a difference in a blind level matched comparison between a digital copy of your analog source (burnded it into a CD) and your analog source.

 

[Rottmannash]

I am posting them as I am doing them.

Sleep is optional when the APX 555 calls.

 

[Rottmannash]

For heavens sake man, it's hotter than the surface of Mercury up where you are—clams and oysters are baking in the sand on the beaches—take a break. Crack open a cold one and relax.

Probably why he's in his air conditioned house catching up on reviews.

 

[Robin L]

With a SINAD that misses the 16 bit mark

Bigger problem that there is no DAC which can play 24 bit.
So you cannot listen to Hi-Res music.

The real problem is that people can't hear hi-rez music, it exceeds our perceptual abilities. Noting can actually play back 24 bits, we certainly can't hear the difference.