Beresford Bushmaster DAC Reviews

[DSJR]

I'm hoping Stan and Marco will back me up here please.....

Bear with me fellas. Many cheaper audio systems of old needed a bit of "zing" sometimes to give them a bit of life and impressions of "detail." I remember we selling loads of Spendor S series speakers with Chord Odyssey speaker cable for instance, as the two definitely work well together. Taken separately however, the Spendors could sound a little thickened and dulled and the odyssey over-hyped in the treble and rather unpleasant - same with their related Chorus interconnect I recall.

Bringing this to the DAC's and cheaper digital audio in general, the cheaper implementations often either sounded soft and diffuse, or pin-sharp to a fault with that sort of "cheap transistor amp" kind of lean-toned "flatness" I can't describe very well. So many audio enthusiasts dismissed "digital" for this very reason, and it was only my hearing an early Sony pro-DAC (6130?) played through a Naim tape loop (record outs to A-D, then D-A back to monitor in) and being nigh on inaudible that got me thinking.

Bringing this back to thread, the better speaker cables I tried (I specifically compared the Odyssey to the VDH The Wind here and it was an obvious difference), The Wind sounded "quieter" in the treble by means of FAR less treble hash and a better perceived bass quality, but with greater real clarity. I've also found this to be the case with better interconnect choices, again, a more subtle quality quite often, rather than "screaming deeeeetaaaaaiiiillllll."

The best digital sources I've heard just seem to get on with it and let the recording speak for itself. Timbre and subtle inflexions in the playing of an instrument are definitely there in a well mastered digital CD red book recording if the playback machine and system allows it and I strongly suspect this is what the BM does, albeit at a very much lower price. as a result, i reckon some may feel it's not as overtly "detailed" as the cheaper competition, PURELY because it's not spitching or hashing its way through recordings with strong treble.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. Real Top End reproduction doesn't have to cost the earth and I'm very much of the idea that the simpler we can make the playback chain, the better it will be ultimately, no matter how lovely and inticate these old Sony and Philips/Marantz DACs of old look inside. Just think of all those components and IC op-amps the signal has to pass through in these things.

There's a new NAD DAC out there for £1500 or so. Looks like a very basic circuit board which has not much more on it than the average computer MoBo at £60 or so. I'm sure it's very good, but priced to suit a market perception methinks

[loonytunes]

For those of you waiting to listen many hours later after 'burn in' time for the Bushmaster to improve yet further - take time out to read this document: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf - look for the article, The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio - point number 6

[Gazjam]

[Gazjam]

I'm hoping Stan and Marco will back me up here please.....

Bear with me fellas. Many cheaper audio systems of old needed a bit of "zing" sometimes to give them a bit of life and impressions of "detail." I remember we selling loads of Spendor S series speakers with Chord Odyssey speaker cable for instance, as the two definitely work well together. Taken separately however, the Spendors could sound a little thickened and dulled and the odyssey over-hyped in the treble and rather unpleasant - same with their related Chorus interconnect I recall.

Bringing this to the DAC's and cheaper digital audio in general, the cheaper implementations often either sounded soft and diffuse, or pin-sharp to a fault with that sort of "cheap transistor amp" kind of lean-toned "flatness" I can't describe very well. So many audio enthusiasts dismissed "digital" for this very reason, and it was only my hearing an early Sony pro-DAC (6130?) played through a Naim tape loop (record outs to A-D, then D-A back to monitor in) and being nigh on inaudible that got me thinking.

Bringing this back to thread, the better speaker cables I tried (I specifically compared the Odyssey to the VDH The Wind here and it was an obvious difference), The Wind sounded "quieter" in the treble by means of FAR less treble hash and a better perceived bass quality, but with greater real clarity. I've also found this to be the case with better interconnect choices, again, a more subtle quality quite often, rather than "screaming deeeeetaaaaaiiiillllll."

The best digital sources I've heard just seem to get on with it and let the recording speak for itself. Timbre and subtle inflexions in the playing of an instrument are definitely there in a well mastered digital CD red book recording if the playback machine and system allows it and I strongly suspect this is what the BM does, albeit at a very much lower price. as a result, i reckon some may feel it's not as overtly "detailed" as the cheaper competition, PURELY because it's not spitching or hashing its way through recordings with strong treble.

I hope this makes some sort of sense. Real Top End reproduction doesn't have to cost the earth and I'm very much of the idea that the simpler we can make the playback chain, the better it will be ultimately, no matter how lovely and inticate these old Sony and Philips/Marantz DACs of old look inside. Just think of all those components and IC op-amps the signal has to pass through in these things.

There's a new NAD DAC out there for £1500 or so. Looks like a very basic circuit board which has not much more on it than the average computer MoBo at £60 or so. I'm sure it's very good, but priced to suit a market perception methinks

I heard this "lean toned flatness" (to my ears) in a new dac recently...maybe Burn in?
I've experienced sound changes over time with other new equipment, so will compare again in a few days.

[MartinT]

The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio - point number 6

Utter dreck. Why don't you do as has been stated many times on this forum and listen for yourself?

[Marco]

For those of you waiting to listen many hours later after 'burn in' time for the Bushmaster to improve yet further - take time out to read this document: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf - look for the article, The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio - point number 6

Ha - the blinkered 'objectivist' dogma of Peter Aczel. No surprise there!

Best filed in the bin....

Marco.

[webby]

I think mood has a big affect on your perception. How many times have you thought your car feels better to drive after its been washed? I know I have, and I guess it's just because I feel better about my car, and I don't clean it very often!

Also, the way we listen. We can try and listen to the whole spectrum but still, if you focus on the bass you will hear things you didn't hear before. I dabble with the bass guitar and to learn bass lines I have to listen very attentively to the bass and I definitely hear it better when I do so.

[StanleyB]

So the Caiman was guilty of that sound and the BM has fixed that, yes?

Hi Lee, you haven't been paying attention to how digital audio has been described over the last couple of decades or you are being a troll. So let's find out which one it is, shall we?

What specific accusation are you leveling against your Caiman, or have you never owned one?
Have you not read on my website or gathered from the feedback given by Bushmaster owners so far how it is possible to now buy a DAC at the affordable end of the market that doesn't have most if not all of the negative attributes so much associated with digital music in general, or its reproduction by the majority of DACs out there?

[StanleyB]

For those of you waiting to listen many hours later after 'burn in' time for the Bushmaster to improve yet further - take time out to read this document: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_26_r.pdf - look for the article, The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio - point number 6

Sure, but has the person who wrote that got any experience in designing and building DACs? No? Then why is he writing things of which he has no knowledge? Would you put your trust in the binman's advise on the outcome of a medical operation? Seems that you would.

[StanleyB]

I think mood has a big affect on your perception. How many times have you thought your car feels better to drive after its been washed? I know I have, and I guess it's just because I feel better about my car, and I don't clean it very often!

Also, the way we listen. We can try and listen to the whole spectrum but still, if you focus on the bass you will hear things you didn't hear before. I dabble with the bass guitar and to learn bass lines I have to listen very attentively to the bass and I definitely hear it better when I do so.

There you go again, not paying attention. As I was saying for more several years: I was busy designing a DAC that could do things far better than any other DAC that the average person could afford. Many accused me of making outrageous comments over the years whilst others pointed to the impossibility of the task at the sort of price level I had in mind. The years went by, but still no such DAC showed up. Then some of my beta testers started to mention what they had heard coming out of the prototypes. It sounded and read as if it was far too good to be true. But eventually about two weeks ago I started shipping the Bushmaster. And people could now finally compare my outrageous claims against a real product.
Of course, I can see that you are having difficulties with coming to terms with all of that. It's understandable. But as a bass player, if you have never heard Jimi Hendrix playing, then I suggest that you get some of his record to listen to. Even decades after his death the majority of guitar players have not been able to pay a guitar the way he did. But if you told that story to someone who has never heard one of his records they would accuse you of making it all up. Honestly.