This dealer in Indiana is selling Musetec in the US at a slight discount:
First impressions of new MH-DA006, Musetec flagship
I have received the 006 almost a week ago and have been breaking it in. The price at Shenzhenaudio is $3,900.00 USD, $600 more than the 005. The ad copy states:
"DA006 is a new generation of flagship DAC developed by Musetec over three years and launched in 2024. During this period, it has undergone more than ten revisions and adjustments.
Compared to the previous DA005, the listening experience of DA006 has been improved in all aspects. DA006 has clearer and richer details, a stronger sense of texture, a more stable sound base, better detail control, a wider soundstage, fuller and more powerful, smoother and more natural. . ."
Some brief listening during break in has been very very positive. I will report back when it has run at least 300 hours.
Showing 8 responses by catastrofe
@SNS I have the LAiV and I can tell you that their USB implementation is stellar. I purchased a Gustard U18 in order to try the I2S input on the Harmony, and there was no difference between the I2S and USB inputs. I would love to see a comparison between the Harmony and the 006. I'm a huge fan of R2R having owned a couple of different MSB units in the past (they're too pricey for me now), and the Harmony would hold its own against the older MSB Analog DAC IMHO. |
@sns, by "stellar" I meant that LAiV's USB implementation, being galvanically isolated, is probably as good an implementation as can be found. I tried an iFi iPurifier 3 in the chain (Roon core > USB > LAiV) just for grins, and there was no improvement. I also found the LAiV USB input to be on par with its I2S input, using a Gustard U-18. Switching between internal and external clocking on the LAiV yielded no noticeable difference either. Of course, that's a function of the clock quality in both the LAiV and the U-18. In my 40+ years in this hobby, I've never heard MSB being described as analytical. That has not been my experience, having owned both the Analog DAC, and prior to that, the Signature DAC IV. Looking forward to your additional thoughts once you start listening to the LAiV. |
Here's a summary of clock considerations from MSB: https://msbtechnology.com/dacs/clock-options/ To summarize, the most important aspect of clock implementation is the elimination of jitter and phase noise, not the type of clock and its supposed accuracy (ie OCXO vs Femto etc.). External clocks are a poor choice due to the introduction of jitter from the additional cabling. |
If USB is so flawed, why hasn't the market driven it to the trash bin? Every DAC manufacturer has the ability to provide an I2S and/or external clock input, yet most don't even though it would provide an enhanced revenue stream in the form of DDC and clock sales. The top DAC manufacturers (DCS, Weiss, MSB, Wadax, etc.) eschew the use of I2S for USB. Sonore doesn't provide an I2S output on their Rendu devices because they found that implementation matters more than the "format". Jusi Laako, founder of Signalyst/HQ Player is fairly vocal regarding the negatives of I2S due to the clock being so far removed from the DAC. PS Audio was one of the first manufacturers to promote I2S in their original PerfectWave DAC for which I was a Beta Tester. At that time (~2007) I was all-in on I2S and it definitely sounded better than USB. As technology has progressed, improvements in USB isolation and better clock implementations have reduced any perceived benefit provided by I2S. If you feel that your system sounds better via I2S compared to USB, great, but that doesn't mean it's empirically better and it's certainly not an absolute. |
I completely agree regarding experiential evidence and I have no skin in the game either. I do think it's important to clarify that experiential evidence is only valid for the specific use case involved. That includes power, cabling, room interactions, etc. While I2S or OCXO clocks may provide a perceived benefit over USB in a specific setup, changing a single part of that equation may invalidate the benefit. Regarding the "best" manufacturers not adopting I2S; the point is that if one format was inherently or demonstrably better than an other, the best of the best would have adopted it. Rather, some of them specifically state that I2S is a flawed format for digital audio transmission.
I have never seen anything equivocating SPDIF and I2S...I don't believe they're "closely related" at all...a primary/significant difference being that I2S is synchronous while SPDIF is asynchronous. Your observation regarding the Grimm MU-1 supports the point I'm making...the protocol itself, whether it's USB, I2S, SPDIF, etc. isn't the singular determining factor in audio quality. Assuming sound engineering and quality components, implementation is the overarching determiner of good sound.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
|
