Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC


Some history: I was the OP on a four year old thread about the Chinese LKS MH-DA004 DAC. It achieved an underground buzz. The open architecture of its predecessor MH-DA003 made it the object of a lot of user mods, usually to its analog section, rolling op amps or replacing with discrete. The MH-DA004 with its new ESS chips and JFET analog section was called better then the modified older units. It has two ES9038pro DAC chips deliberately run warm, massive power supply, powered Amanero USB board, JFET section, 3 Crystek femtosecond clocks, Mundorf caps, Cardas connectors, etc., for about $1500. For this vinyl guy any reservation about ESS chips was resolved by the LKS implimentaion, but their revelation of detail was preserved, something that a listener to classic music especially appreciated. I made a list of DACs (many far more expensive) it was compared favorably to in forums. Modifications continued, now to clocks and caps. Components built to a price can be improved by costlier parts and the modifiers wrote glowingly of the SQ they achieved.

Meanwhile, during the 4 years after release of the MH-DA004, LKS (now Musetec) worked on the new MH-DA005 design, also with a pair of ES9038pro chips. This time he used more of the best components available. One torroidal transformer has silver plated copper. Also banks of super capacitors that act like batteries, solid silver hookup wire, 4 femtoclocks each costing multiples of the Crysteks, a revised Amanero board, more of the best European caps and a new partitioned case. I can't say cost NO object, but costs well beyond. A higher price, of course. Details at http://www.mu-sound.com/DA005-detail.html

The question, surely, is: How does it sound? I'm only going to answer indirectly for the moment. I thought that the MH-DA004 was to be my last DAC, or at least for a very long time. I was persuaded to part with my $$ by research, and by satisfaction with the MH-DA004. Frankly, I have been overwhelmed by the improvement; just didn't think it was possible. Fluidity, clarity, bass extension. A post to another board summed it up better than I can after listening to piano trios: "I have probably attended hundreds of classical concerts (both orchestral and chamber) in my life. I know what live sounds like in a good and bad seat and in a good and mediocre hall. All I can say is HOLY CRAP, this sounds like the real thing from a good seat in a good hall. Not an approximation of reality, but reality."

melm

Showing 8 responses by dbb

I experimented with the Topping Pre90. I found volume problems when I used it with my McIntosh 152 preamp using the higher voltage balanced inputs. The loudness problem was solved when I switched to the lower voltage RCA inputs. Ultimately I preferred my Hegel preamp. The Topping sounded too thin with many recordings. The pre90’s transparency was impressive, but after much listening I preferred the texture provided by the Hegel.  I only used it with two McIntosh power amps (MC152 and MC402) and got the same results with both.

@melm 

I agree. How good it would be if we could get back to the old Absolute Sound reviewing philosophy. Audiophile terms such as "layered", "seperation", etc. are less useful in the abstract. The baseline ideally should be a real musical event. 

@batvac2  You said: "These [quantitative] characteristics - to me - provide a broad sense of the fitness of the engineering and industrial design."

I think what you are saying, if I can restate, is your method of evaluating the quality of a piece of audio equipment, includes measured excellence, not because it will necessarily sound better, but because it gives you confidence in the quality, much like provenance to a work of art. It is not just your subjective experience alone, but the customary earmarks of quality. A fake work or art may be just as enjoyable as the original, but you want also what is generally accepted as an earmark of quality.

@yyzsantabarbara The Serene review seems impossibly contradictory. More transparent than the Benchmark, but yet more engaging and musical. I would need a lot more information in order to understand what exactly their reporting. 

@sns I agree it's possible. I just need more information to understand the details of how they achieved it. One question would be: how does does it handle mediocre, harsh,  or thin recordings? Would the result still be musical or fatiguing?

@sns  " . . .     Both [analytical and romantic approachess] made certain recordings intolerable, you know you've hit the mark when pleasurable listening sessions don't require a culling of recordings based on sound quality."

 Yes. This is my goal. I've experimented with two inexpensive highly transparent preamps, the Topping  Pre90 and the Gustard P26. Some recordings were wonderfully clear but too many others were rendered thin, harsh, and fatiguing. My more expensive, but older Hegel P30 still managed to beat them in realism, natural timber, and texture even though it is not SOTA in transparency. Hegel is coming out soon with an updated P30 that may have SOTA transparency. 

@americanspirit If you're still looking for a preamp, you might want to try a Hegel P20. I use it with the 005 and the McIntosh MC152. I found it was better than the McIntosh C47, more dynamic, detailed, and timbrely accurate.