@blang
Nice to hear of your satisfaction with the Musetec.
Jinbo is not Paul McGowan. He is just a very small designer/manufacturer. I don't think he gives usage advice, as a dealer might. But if anything goes wrong, or to get it up an working if there's a problem, he will be there.
The consensus seems to be that the DAC is optimized for USB and I think it is fair to say that is way most users go.
As for USB cable, I use and have recommended AudioQuest Pearl. It is a well made solid core copper and I have gotten good feedback abut it. In any event, it is not expensive and, at least, a good place to start.
One of the often overlooked ways to try cable is through Amazon, which has a very liberal return policy.
|
@lordmelton
Of course, the Musetec already provides an Amanaro board providing USB to I²S conversion. It may even have better clocks and a better power supply. But if you come up with a superior SQ, we'll all be watching.
|
@lordmelton
"Are you saying that the Amanero board in the 005 converts USB to I2s internally?"
Absolutely. That’s what Amanero boards do. I²S is how all DACs communicate internally.
I realize this thread is getting very long, but we’ve covered this before.
One of the things that distinguishes the Musetec is its advanced power supply for the digital side, The super-capacitors provide battery-like power. For the low voltage needs of the digital side, you can’t do better. And the Musetec clocks have higher specs than the norm. I don’t know what clocks are in the DI-20HE. But the clocks in the Musetec outperform Crystek clocks used in some of the very best DACs, and cost more. These are some of the reasons this DAC is out-performing some very big names.
There are those who favor devices that go from ethernet directly to I²S, bypassing USB entirely. It’s arguable whether that’s worthwhile. But a device that goes USB to I²S? I say save your money; it’s already happening.
|
@lordmelton
I saw your post in the "Emm Labs DV2 versus Tambaqui" thread before it was removed. Go easy on these guys.
It’s very hard for them to get away from two of their fundamentals: (1) There is a strong correlation in DACs between price and sound quality, and (2) You can’t build a truly outstanding DAC around a pair of ESS chips. Then there is the "chifi" stuff. This nonsense has been pounded into everyone by the audio press and multiplied in the forums. So do you think they’re going to easily believe that a $3000 Chinese DAC using ESS chips can outperform a $13,000 European DAC based on an FPGA?
I don’t think so.
|
@theatro
Glad that you have the DAC connected. Sometimes Windows is a nuisance.
Please write of your impressions once you have it up and running for a while.
|
@kclone
You have a unique set-up so It will be fascinating to read of your impressions. Just as interesting might be a comparison with the Denafrips Terminator, if you still have it or remember it well. Welcome to the conversation.
|
@btscott
Thanks for your forthright appraisal, both of hte Musetec and of this thread. I also thought my $1500 DAC (LKS 004) could not be improved upon THAT much by a $3000 DAC with a similar architecture. I bought the Musetec after a lengthy PM exchange with sns on another board and some research. The DAC came as quite a nice surprise, actually a pleasant shock.
For the record, everyone here, AFAIK, has purchased his DAC and no one gets any $$ from Musetec. My only interaction with the maker (and I believe it is through Google translate) is as a customer. When I sent my 004 board in for an update almost 2 years ago and offered to pay, the update was done gratis. We exchanged some very brief pleasantries, mostly about taking care regarding Covid, then a larger factor in China than in the US. I recently sent him a happy Chinese new year email (Year of the Tiger). I’ve always been impressed by the honesty of his operation, especially how the DAC insides and parts are shown and described completely (except for the 8 FETs on the board’s underside). That is VERY different than American and European makers.
As for this thread, I started it soon after receiving the DAC, just trying to give it some exposure. I thought that when dbb wrote his comparison with the Holo May this thread was done. But for some reason a couple of new buyers responded here and it grew. As the OP, when there is a new post here it is my email that is notified. I have tried to help with any questions.
After reading your post, I went through page 1 (Newest first) of this thread. You couldn’t pay me to read stuff back further. I didn’t see anything out of line. For a long time, I think, most of the DAC complements have come from new buyers like yourself. We’ve even gotten some thanks.
Anyway, you did your due diligence and it seemed to come out just fine.
|
@btscott
The question of a return privilege after purchase has come up earlier in the thread. One post, in particular, wrote of difficulties. As you wrote of a dealer offering returns, I wonder if you'd care to share your purchase experience.
|
@kclone
Sorry to hear that. I wonder if the issue is parts, which he sources from all over the world. That's been a problem these days for manufacturers of all sorts.
|
@turcoda
Singxer has primarily been known for its devices that input USB and output I²S. In the earlier days of PC DAC use, many DACs did not have this function at a very high level and this sort of extra component was often used. LKS made a similar independently powered device using an Amanero board. LKS and other makers eventually brought this function into the DAC and the demand for the Singxer device waned. There has been some discussion in this thread about using a Singxer SU-6 in front of the Musetec but it would be redundant, as the Musetec Amanero board does the same thing, and probably far better. Better clocks, better power supply.
The Singer SDA-6, though, is a fully functional DAC at about $1300 for its "advanced" version and it looks like a very nice unit at that price. There are many good Chinese DACs now at about that price. My guess, based on its heritage, is that it has a very good USB input.
|
@sns
@charles1dad
There is no question, I think, but that the best of the new DACs take Redbook further than before. My own experience is that the Musetec brings Redbook closer to high resolution than did the LKS, already close. All this has generated articles on whether there's any further need for high resolution audio in our DACs. Seems to me that higher resolution is not dead just yet for a couple of reasons.
I, for one, hear something special in "pure" DSD recordings, that is recordings that have not passed through any PCM processing. For me that is primarily DSD recordings taken directly from analog tapes. Yes, they're mostly rips of old RCAs and Mobile Fidelitys, but IMO they can be quite spectacular. As for new recordings, besides those that have been doing it for a while, PS Audio is now doing pure DSD recording. They probably have resources enough to make an impression on the market. And of course, SACDs are still being made, particularly in the classical field.
I have carefully compared some of the Nelsons Shostakovich recordings in their Redbook and 96/24 versions and can report a slight benefit from the latter, even to these old ears. It's small, essentially spatial issues, but it's there in my experience. It's a difference we crave. In some other comparisons I have not heard a difference. Would I have been satisfied with the Musetec-Redbook alone? Certainly. It has also been said that for high resolution recordings the mastering is better, that is, done more carefully, so yielding a better sound product. Does that trickle down to the Redbook file of the same recording? I don't really know.
Also, there are those who report beneficial effects using computer programs that do upsampling to the limit of their DAC, and even conversion to DSD and upsampling those also to the limit of their DAC. I'm in no position to question them. I have not done that to any extent myself. I control my music through a PC that is little more than a Chromebook. I could do it manually, but it's not worth the effort, for me.
So hirez seems still to be alive, if somewhat on its heels.
|
@kclone
As @lordmelton wrote, the break-in of your Musetec is usually not in a straight line. Just keep listening and it will get there. There are some very fine, and expensive, capacitors used inside and I think those are the components that take time to sound absolutely right. I would not use the Musetec straight in to your amplifier section. You have a great integrated and you should use it for all it’s sonic benefits. Especially at low volumes, you will be sacrificing too much SQ.
The Equi-Core "power conditioner," as you probably know, is not a power conditioner in the usual sense. It does not create new power, like the PS Audio units, nor does it "simply" filter the AC line as do virtually all the others. It changes the AC power lines in an unique way, supplying live power to the otherwise neutral line. Instead of the component receiving live, neutral and ground lines, it gets two live lines and a ground line. So it is possible that a particular component may not take well to that--I don’t really know. My suggestion is that you consult with Equi-Core, perhaps referring them to the informational page at Musetec to see if there is anything there that might not look friendly upon a "live" neutral line. Given that the Equi-Core is such an odd bird, I’m not sure that Musetec could be of any help. However, given what you have written, I would keep the Musetec away from the Equi-Core.
|
@blang
Supercapacitors, like all capacitors, have a limited lifetime. In the case of supercapacitors it’s usually measured in cycles, the ones in the Musetec for 500,000 cycles. It’s hard to know what that means for normal DAC use. As you know in the Musetec there are two sets of supercapacitors that are charged alternately--should probably lengthen life. In any event, the controller might charge more frequently as they slowly lose capacity. They are not very expensive and not very hard to replace. But I suppose that’s a reason to put the DAC into standby mode between listening sessions.
As I have tubes in my system, I turn it on an off (standby) with the tubes (some also on standby).
|
@kclone
Well, it may depend upon what you mean by burning in. All the inputs are digital so there is no signal going through on stand-by as there is no power being supplied to the digital circuits. The analog circuits I suppose are being kept "warm" with stand-by. I do not know to what extent that constitutes breaking in. I would think that leaving it on with signals going through for three weeks is overkill, but not a lot of wear in the scheme of things. You'll propbably get 90+% of break-in in the first 100 hours or so. Perhaps the engineering types will chime in here with a better answer.
|
Persons researching the Musetec and wanting to read everything, and especially Europeans, may wish to know that there is a new thread about the DAC on a German Audio site: Aktives Hören
Google the site. In Google click on "Bausteine für aktives HiFi" and then scroll to "Qualität von China-Krachern (hier: Musetec DAC)"
Anyone can read it by means of Google Translate. English readers may be amused by some of the translations. Breaking in the DAC becomes "rehearsing" it. Seems logical.
|
@ja_kub_sz
In this crazy world of audio, preferences might very well not be transitive. So it is possible that a person might prefer the May over the Musetec, and the Tambaqui over the May, but yet the Musetec over the Tambaqui. The rules of logic just may not apply here and just have to be set aside.
I personally have long ago given up trying to optimize my system absolutely by buying and trading constantly. It is a process, I think, that costs too much in money and anxiety for a simple audiophile. Just content with very, very good and working around the edges to make it sound better. I love to experiment with cheap wires, for ex.
@kclone @teknorob23
Preferences in DACs, or other audio components for that matter, can IMO be broken down into two categories, what I call the traditional preference vs. the modern preference. These are also reflected in tha manner that professional reviews used to read, and read today. The traditional preference is for accuracy to unamplified musical instruments. This is the "old" Absolute Sound (TAS) standard and can only be done referencing classical music as the standard as @dbb has done here and in his outstanding comparative review here.
In the "old" days reviewers were required to be regular concert goers. Generally, classical music is the only music regularly heard without the intersession of electronics and loudspeakers. As TAS’s editor HP wrote, if it is right for classical music, it will be right for all other music as well. That’s a view I adhere to.
The modern preference is simple. A component is preferred if it sounds good to the listener or reviewer. "Good" is absolutely subjective. So we have threads here that seek advice on obtaining a "warm" or "analog sounding" sounding DAC, for example. The traditional view is that "warm" (they called it yin) is a euphonic coloration to be avoided. As for me, I don’t want a DAC to sound warm. I want a piano to sound warm. I want a cello to sound warm. But I want my DAC to make a cello sound like a cello. Similarly for "analog sounding." That has come to mean, I think, a certain comfort sound, also a euphonic coloration. My reading here suggests it’s being asked for even by those unfamiliar with excellent analog systems. For I don’t even want my analog system to sound like what is here described as "analog" sound. In a thread about a DAC said to be analog sounding, there were expressions like "a relaxed presentation," "allows body relaxation," the sound was "further back in the hall," it "allows my body to relax" and even that it gives "the ability to go into a kind of meditative state." My own preference is very different. For me listening to audio is a substitute for going to a concert. When I do that, I expect my pulse to be greater at the end than when I walked in. Otherwise, what’s the point?
In any event, it’s the buyer’s money and their choices. Components will be made to fit every kind of preference, and that’s fine. But I hope this goes at least part of the way to explain differing preferences in DACs.
|
I also have my grave doubs about the value of the "Enjoy the Music" article referred to. He takes better than 2000 words to say: Buy what sounds good to you. Very low idea to word ratio IMO. Some people get paid, and probably not very much, just to fill up the spaces between ads.
@ja_kub_sz
FWIW I gave my personal view of FPGAs on the "AKM makes the best DACs" thread.
|
@ja_kub_sz
Your DAC adventure continues and we will all be grateful for the information and comparison you will give us. Don't hesitate to tell us that you like the Tambaqui better, if you do. No one ever said that the Musetec is the best of all DACs. I just wonder, though, how you came to choose the Tambaqui from all the FPGA DACs out there.
@lordmelton
It sounds like you're really happy with the Musetec. It's very reassuring to those few of us who discovered this DAC early and were eager to spread the good word. There's always the chance that other people will spend the, not insignificant, money and be disappointed. We are just audiophiles like yourself. So far it seems to have worked out OK.
|
@mresseguie
As you know there are not all that many Musetecs out there, so the probability of comparisons especially to other DACs that also are not in very wide use is pretty remote. A review of this thread, @dbb’s comparison thread, and the Musetec thread on head-fi will probably produce all the comparisons there are in the English speaking world.
A quick look shows the Nuprime Evolution DAC looking like a nice DAC at about the same price as the Musetec. It uses one ES9038PRO DAC chip, compared to the Musetec’s two. It also seems to have rollable op amps in its analog circuit. The Musetec doesn’t.
The SW1X is far more expensive, uses tubes and an older Philips DAC chip so is in a whole different world.
It looks like any one of these might provide you with fine audio.
It is not easy to order a multi kilobuck DAC that’s not well known. Here, we’ve all been through that. But there has yet to be a report of disappointment--or a return where permitted.
|
I realize that, though I’m the OP here, apart from descriptions of its insides and very few well chosen words in the initial post, I haven’t offered a review of the Musetec DAC. I guess I should, but as so much has already been written about the Musetec here and here I’ll do it in a slightly different way:
Musical DAC vs. Detailed DAC - A Distinction Without Merit
We all know when a new DAC provides good detail. We say we hear things in familiar tracks that we didn’t hear before. Actually, I don’t think that’s generally true. But, you respond, with the new DAC at one minute and 23 seconds into the track I heard a note on an oboe that I had not heard on this track I have listened to many times before. Well, I maintain that with your old DAC, had I alerted you to that note when one minute 23 seconds came around, you would then have heard the note. What actually happened with your old DAC is that you actually heard, but did not take notice of, the note. Why was that?
When I go to a live orchestral concert I often hear things in familiar music that I had not taken notice of at home listening to recordings. That is because at the concert, all of the instruments are there exposing their full beautiful envelope of overtones, the full texture of the instruments in their spaces. They glisten. That makes it impossible not to take notice of them. To me that’s the clue.
We often hear the expression that such and such a DAC is very musical, or something close to that. Usually, I take that to mean just that the listener likes the DAC. However, when I call a component musical, I mean something more specific. I mean that the component makes it sound like the musician is using an especially fine instrument, which by the way is often done for recordings, and that the musician is skilled at tone production, an attribute of a fine musician. For the audio component that means it is revealing the full envelope of the instrument’s overtones. This forces me not only to hear the instrument, but to take notice of it--it is no longer a colorless addition to the volume of the sound--it is more specifically a whole complex of beautiful sounds in its space setting it apart from the rest, that simply commands my full attention. Glistening. Closer to a live concert.
I’m not here writing of the associated noises that are part of much instrumental playing, the initial chuff of a strong bow pull on a violin or the clicking of the keys on a clarinet. You will hear that too. But it is the richness of tone that comes from a fine instrument expertly played that I’m focusing on.
So, as I see it, in order to have a musical DAC, it must be a detailed DAC. It must transmit clearly and correctly what we used to call the low level information. Here I am spotlighting the instrumental overtones, but exactly the same reasoning accounts for all the spatial clues. It’s the low level information. Just as it was/is for analog, by the way.
So the bottom line: you can probably write it for me. I think the Musetec 005 provides that. I don’t doubt that some other DACs provide it as well. There is no trade-off here. Musicality and detail. It’s not either-or; it’s both. A distinction without merit.
|
@auxinput,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm not an engineer though I wired up a number of units long ago and used to do mods before the industry went to surfaced mounts. Screwed up a few and quit.
As for the Musetec, FWIW as far as I can tell the silver components have only to to with the power supply. The analog signal path is by traces on a six layer board. It is refreshing to me to see a maker tell you exactly what he has put inside. Most descriptions provided by DAC makers are just promotional gibberish.
I'm not trying to sell anything here, just to provide this DAC with some exposure. Since there has never been any promotion of these products, my surmise has always been that the the company is tiny and sells all it can make |
@rh67,
The list price is $3299. Googling the DAC, that's what comes up. The European distributer lists it on ebay.de for less when you remove the VAT and with free shipping to the US. But if I wanted another I might email the factory. Perfect English there.
Cheers. |
Since sns has written about the ESS Sabre DAC chip, and because Sabre chips were trashed by someone in the MH-DA004 thread as others have in other places, I'd like to share my reasons for going this route. The main reason for the trash talk, I think, is that these chips are used in a great many inexpensive and otherwise not very good performing DACs that can then advertise the same chip as in the expensive DACs.
But the ES9038PRO is probably the result of more R & D over multiple generations and three decades than any digital to analog sound circuit on the planet. Implemented well they are used in some of the best DACs available. For example, the Ayre QX-5 Twenty ($9000), the Mytek Manhattan ($6000) and the Weiss DAC502 ($10,000). Apparently the Meridian Ultra DAC ($23,000) also uses a pair of off-the-shelf chips, but their identity is unrevealed. Could they be Sabres? Like Meridian, by the way, many DAC manufacturers try very hard to hide what's inside. Too many have not heard chips implemented this well and yet have formed general opinions about them anyway.
Call me technologically limited, but I have never understood the interest by companies in developing alternate digital to analog circuits on an FPGA chip, except as a marketing scheme. Nor have I understood the willingness of the audio public to pay a premium for it. At the end, you still have a chip, and to build a great DAC you still have to surround it with great components--power supply, clocks, USB to I2S converter, analog stage, etc. Designers can use a chip like a Sabre, and they don't have to use the full range of offerings of this chip if they don't wish to. They can bypass functions and implement their own, like filters, for example. Designers have done just that. But they don't have to reinvent the basic digital to analog conversion and charge their customers extra for doing it. It takes a lot of resources, pushes the DAC price up and probably takes its toll from other parts of the circuit.
Any talk of FPGA must consider the Chord DAVE ($12,500). I mention the DAVE especially because some audiophiles who have listened to it and the LKS MH-DA004 ($1500) have characterized them as being in about the same audio ballpark. One can believe or disbelieve as you wish. The MH-DA004 has the advantage of a large linear power supply while the DAVE has a switching power supply normally costing far less to make. Beyond that, and that it has an FPGA, I know nothing about what's inside the DAVE though I have read all I can about it.
Just to complete the circle I also considered an R2R Ladder DAC, seemingly the current favorite. R2R DACs of comparable quality, though also from China, cost about twice as much as the Musetec, for a quality R2R has a lot of very high precision parts. I did much reading/research on R2Rs. I found comments from satisfied users around the Web, much like some in a thread here comparing DAC technologies. There were expressions like "a relaxed presentation," "allows body relaxation," the sound was "further back in the hall," it "allows my body to relax" and even that it gives "the ability to go into a kind of meditative state." My own preference is very different. For me listening to audio is a substitute for going to a concert. When I do that, I expect my pulse to be greater at the end than when I walked in. Otherwise, what's the point? Same with audio. A Beethoven symphony is not a lullaby. And do I want a middle of the hall perspective when that's not where the main mikes were? Not me. These typical R2R reactions are not what I am personally looking for.
|
@sirnui
Just goes to show there are many routes to audio nirvana, all depending on what you may have in front of the Musetec
Interesting that the earlier LKS MH-DA004 was (and still is, I think) available in two forms. A more expensive one that includes an Amanero USB board, and a less expensive one that includes just a utilitarian USB board. The latter was for those who were happy to save the money for either they already had a Singxer-like device, or were not going to use USB in any event. IIUC the DAC with the Amanero board was by far the greater seller. The Musetec, to date, does not offer the less expensive option though I think if they did the savings would surpass that on the 004. There appears to be a lot of effort to make the USB to I²S conversion in the 005 especially effective, and many of us have found it so.
There is one user on the head-fi thread though who also does not use the USB input to the Musetec. He has removed the Amanero board claiming just a bit more SQ. If you are willing to open up the DAC, removing the board is very easy. Slipping it back in, just as easy.
Different strokes.
|
@rc22
Thanks for the kind words.
You raise a very good point about the interaction of low level information, dynamic range, and ambient noise. The equipment gets better and better. The recordings get better and better. The Dynamic Range of the Musetec is given at 136 db. Recordings will not get near there. In typical domestic environments, of course, they shouldn't.
My own experience with symphonic recordings, and it has been written of by others, is that dynamic ranges on some recordings already stretch the limits. I could cite some BIS recordings, as have some critics in (internet) print. Raise the level so you can hear the quietest passages clearly and the FFFs will blast you out of your seat. Adjust for the loudest and the softest fade away. As I hear it the Musetec provides the full dynamic range of the recording. Perhaps I am affected in this particular way as I sit relatively close to the speakers.
|
Thanks for your post. Those of us who have and enjoy this Musetec DAC would love to see a professional review of it, but, unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen. There are just too few units out there, and though there’s a distributer in Europe, there’s none in the US.. The best I can offer is to let you know that there’s an active thread over at head-fi with several owners of this DAC participating. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/four-years-after-the-l-k-s-da004-the-musetec-da005-dac.953177/ Any one of them, I’m certain, would be glad to offer comments and answer any question you might have. I think most of us originally owned the LKS MH-DA004. There were many more of these units out there (at $1500 price point) and I used to have a long list of favorable comparisons to other DACs at that price or more.. Confidence in the designer and the very detailed description of the deluxe parts he put into the Musetec, along with comments by early users did persuade us. I think we were very happy with the LKS’s performance with the dual 9038 sabre chipset. The Musetec seems to take those dual chips perhaps about as far as they can go, and most of us think that's pretty far. And by the way I made a mistake in my original post. The transformer powering the analog section is not a torroidal. It is an O-Ring transformer that can cost 8 to 10 times the cost of a torroid. That’s but one example of the parts quality in this unit. |
@lordmelton
Nice post.
About a month ago when some of us early users were being criticized as "salesmen" my response was that most of the favorable comments these days were coming from those who had purchased recently and were sharing. So thanks. For a component without advertising or commercial reviews Audiogon forum exposure has often been a means of sharing information about some terrific products.
@charles1dad
I appreciate your post. I hadn't heard of the Merason DAC. Looking at what I can find about it the DAC seems both a lot more expensive and a lot less sophisticated than the Musetec. But you never know, and the proof will always be in the listening.
@car123
I enjoyed reading what you wrote. It has the elements of a terrific review, but you must write again after a full break-in. Remember, the break-in may not be in a straight line. I responded particularly to your comment that Chris Eldridge obviously put new strings on his guitar and that was made apparent in your listening. Well, for a recording he most likely did, and that's exactly what you heard. As I wrote before, classical soloists will often borrow a great instrument for a recording. Kind of the same thing. Well, I have probably bored some readers writing about classical, but your comment may have brought them back in.
|
@yyzsantabarbara
I didn't know very much about the Giscard, but it looks like a fine unit and a good value. After reading a bit about it, I think a closer comparison would be to the
LKS MH-DA004 which I had and liked very much. In fact I started a thread about it here about 4 years ago where I describe its components and sound impressions in detail.
The Musetec
MH-DA005 though is in another league entirely with component parts costing multiples of what's inside those DACs. As for comparisons, one of the posters to the Musetec thread over at Head-Fi has said he will soon be comparing the Musetec ($3000) to a Holo Audio May Level 2. ($4800). I look forward to reading that one.. |
@yyzsantabarbara First, I don’t know what you mean by the 007. If you mean the Musetec 005 we would all be happy to see a review. However, a comparative review with the Gustard X26 Pro would probably not be a fair comparison. The direct import Chinese DACs generally have pricing that is a fair reflection of the quality of the materials within. This is because other costs like labor and marketing are usually very low, and the competition very high. In the case of the Musetec, it uses an o-ring silver plated transformer for the analog circuit that can cost upwards of 20X the cost of the transformers in the Gustard. It uses custom clocks costing multiples of the off-the-shelf clocks in most (even more expensive) DACs. It uses very high quality European capacitors, some costing $95 each. It uses a bank of super-capacitors and a special circuit generating battery-like DC for its digital circuits. And a whole lot more. For further details, if you are interested, you can see the full description at http://www.mu-sound.com/DA005-detail.html It has always been my experience that long-time enjoyment of an audio component is enhanced by the quality of its internal parts. As I wrote earlier, everything about the description of the Gustard seems close to that of the LKS 004, a DAC whose insides I know very well, and which I would easily prefer over the Gustard for several reasons, some described in detail in my OP and follow-up at the LKS 004 thread here. I don’t mean to diminish the Gustard in any way. It’s just that I made a careful choice when I purchased the LKS and enjoyed it very much for several years. As for built-in optical streaming, or built-in anything else, it has always been my preference to have separates. That way when you want to upgrade (and that can happen a lot in digital), you don’t have to get rid of your whole system. |
@ja_kub_sz
Welcome to the club. Glad that you’re enjoying the DAC. Your initial response was similar to my own. I hesitated to say exactly why I liked my new DAC. It was just . . . everything! A very similar dropping jaw. Found it hard to believe that the same DAC chips and a similar design could be made to sound so much better. It’s all in the implementation. We keep reading that’s true, but here it is.
|
@metaldetektor
Actually his latest review, of a Gustard, was done thanks to a loan from a Chinese retailer. For a Musetec, perhaps he can contact Musetec's European distributer in Cologne. Though with his viewership and subscriber numbers he may be making enough from his videos to purchase a unit and sell it later. |
@wharfy
I read your posts with interest. I use all tubes (Rogue) but for the Musetec DAC. I am surprised by your comment that age brings about sensitivity to higher frequencies, as I’ve always thought the opposite. In any event, some tube rolling can tone things down. Like dbb, my interest is in classical music, IMO the most difficult to reproduce. And, as in analog, detail matters.
I continue to compare digital to my analog (still all tubes) and I find it comparable. Sometimes, but not always, the same recordings sound eerily near each other, but for the usual analog sounds.
I find the Musetec to be a truth machine and to be extremely responsive to what comes before it in the digital chain. I use an SOtM unit as a DLNA device with a very simple laptop running JRiver. As I wrote in another place, even adding an $18 ethernet switch and having my hard disk server bypass the router yielded a surprising SQ benefit. Is an audiophile switch in my future? I don’t know.
I have also found it quite responsive to the USB cable, and I do recommend that the Musetec is optimized for USB. But it needn’t be an expensive cable. The DAC seems so cleanly extended at the frequency extremes that a simple solid core copper is doing better for me than expensive silver wires.
That being said, as a truth machine it will reveal the truth of your software, sometimes as gloriously recorded; sometimes not so much. Did we not go through exactly the same thing in analog?
it seems that you have a great deal of experience with a variety of DACs and have not yet settled on a Sigma-Delta v. R2R. I don’t yet know whether you are sufficiently convinced about the Musetec, but the current sale price at Shenzhen is attractive and they offer a 30 day No Reason Return. While you would probably have to cover return shipping, that is likely to be less, for example, than the 5% restocking fee plus 2 way postage for a return of a Schiit Yggdrasil to California. Perhaps that adds some perspective.
Good luck to you whichever direction you go.
|
@wharfy
As dbb wrote we are especially eager to have your evaluation. While I think you will hear something very special within the first day or two, be sure to run it hard for the 30 days. It can use a lot of break-in, and the break-in is not linear; give it the full time.
|
@warfy
I had been using a solid silver cable with the LKS 004. As opposed to other cables it gave it some extra body and high frequency extension. For the Musetec I found it was unnecessary, and am now using Audioqest Pearl which is simply a solid copper cable. But that is something I will experiment with. As I said earlier, the Musetec is very responsive to what comes before it in the digital chain.
When I broke in my DACs I simply put a flash drive in my old Oppo 105 and let it run some files as a loop, not excercising any mechanical device. One week of 24/7 should be enough at least for a good evaluation. It is many years since I played a CD. I proved to myself a while back that rips had clearly better SQ even with a simple set-up, though I appreciate that you have a fine disk player Also, as I wrote earlier, the Musetec is really optimized for USB. Anyway, someone who remembers Lafayette Radio probably has the time to rip his CD collection--as I did. 😀
|
@yyzsantabarbara
Regarding your comment about I2S: When I first got the LKS 004, which also had 2 I2S sockets (so enticing!), I also thought of finding an ethernet to I2S device to bypass the USB entirely. While this appeared to have a theoretical advantage, I found that such devices out there were few and kind of expensive. After all, there weren’t many DACs that accepted I2S and there still isn’t an I2S standard. There was one at a not too unreasonable cost that was tested by Hans Beekhuyzen. His finding was that it did not improve SQ on his Brooklyn Bridge beyond what was accomplished with USB and the lowest cost SOtM device..
In fact, as I wrote elsewhere the Musetec is optimized for USB with its conversion from USB to I2S enhanced beyond what was done on the LKS. Theoretically you might find something that will outperform it, but I looked extensively and I couldn’t.
In any event I’m especially eager to hear of your response to the Musetec. Let us all know.
|
@mboldda1
As noted there is not yet a standard for I2S, so I'm not surprised it did not work correctly. Many units intended to output I2S have dip switches within so that the proper connections are made. That is generally done at the I2S out level rather than at the DAC. The Jay's Audio device would then be compatable with all DACs with I2S instead of just a few.
Your solution is to make up a custom hdmi cable. It would be much easier to make a custom ethernet cable* but the Jay's Audio device does not provide that option. Making a custom hdmi cable is similar, but there are more wires. As both Jay's Audio and LKS give you their pin designation, it sould be doable. See "How to assemble a HDMI cable" on youtube. Or you can do a search for outfits that will make you up the correct cable when you give them the info in your two manuals. Obviously, it's just a matter of switching two wires. You've come this far, so seems like a worthwhile project.
By the way, I'm guessing that you switched the channels elsewhere for listening. How did you like the results through the I2S?
*Easy enough for me to have done it.
|
|
@yyzsantabarbara
I don't have mine set up that way. However, since there's no switching between the RCA and the XLR outputs, they are all "live." I don't think you'll have a problem, but you'll know with absolute certainty in a short while.
|
@wharfy
Shenzhen tells me that were I to order today, the DAC would be shipped out by the end of next week. By the way, the Shenzhen price is back to the full list price, but they tell me that their Black Friday sales begin on Nov. 22.
I contacted the factory and though the owner says they’re busy (as is usual he says towards the end of the year) everything is running smoothly and orders will be shipped within 7 days.
My own DAC was sent from the factory by Fedex and that kind of shipment is not, I think, affected by the container shipping delays so much in the news these days. Mine arrived on the East coast ln just less than a week from being shipped. That was in April.
|
China, being ahead of us in time, the Black Friday price of under $3000 is now listed on the Shenzhen web site.
|
@bill_k
While I am in no position to make any prediction for anyone else, my Musetec DAC was sent by Fedex in April, tracked continually from China and delivered to my door (East Coast US) just like any other Fedex delivery,. No duty, no tax, no brokerage, no fee. Same experience about 5 years ago when I received my LKS 004.
|
@yyzsantabarbara
Glad it came so soon.
As for DPLL, others can probably better explain exactly what it is. Since I play a lot of DSD files, I set it at the lowest number that can receive those files cleanly. Theoretically a lower number is better SQ. I cannot discern differences among reasonably closely placed numbers. If you play just PCM, you can probably keep it at 1
Make sure you bypass the volume control, unless you want to use it. It is a digital volume, so it will cut into SQ if you use it.
Some people keep the DAC on all the time. I put it into standby after each use and wait for it to go through its charging routine each time I turn it on.
I’m holding my breath until you get rid of the dog and start enjoying that DAC.😄 You won’t have to wait for 400 hours to see what it can do.
|
@wharfy
Glad to see that you received the Musetec quickly and that you like it.
But "brittle"?😕
As for the filter, most of us use Slow-L, I think. I do think you have to pick one or the other. The Singxer SU1 converts USB to I2S (or even spdif). The Amanero board inside the Musetec converts USB to I2S, so the Singxer is redundant. I recall similar discussion re: the LKS 004 and the Singxer. The consensus, IIRC, was that the Singxer and the Amanero board in the LKS were about the same in performance. I have to believe that the Amanero Board now containing the new upgraded crystal clocks do an even better job. Of course, there is no harm in trying, but that would involve an additional (really, unnecessary) cable. Not sure I see the point. If it were me I would just sell the Singxer.
Remember that break-in may not be in a straight line. Congratulations and enjoy the DAC.
@yyzsantabarbara
Now that the dog is under control, any further impressions?
|
@wharfy
It's so nice to read your impressions of the DAC. There's always a bit of anxiety for some of us recommending an audio product. When writing of the LKS 004 I was never so secure in a recommendation though I thought it was, and is, a fine DAC for the money. But the Musetec is the real deal. We keep saying that it's "implementation." To me that means mostly power supply and analog section. Those are places where this DAC excels. But they're not the only places.
Glad you could get it at the Black Friday price which is ending today.
As for CDs, everyone will have their own solution. My CD player is an Oppo 105, likely not as good as your player. I doubt that you will find a quality disk player that will output USB. I determined easily that ripped CDs even played simply from a USB hard disk to laptop (using Jriver) to DAC provided better SQ than playing from the disk player. Plus the convenience. So I ripped my CDs and now have a more sophisticated set-up. It took a while, but a few each day . . . Can you rip to your server?
|
@wharfy
About ripping CDs, yes all the data is 16/44 yet it can be heard differently as it passes through one or another USB cable or as it passes through my SOtM sMS-200 or sns’s Uptone regen. It’s the old "bits are bits" argument, or not. I have convinced myself through experimentation that running files from a hard disk yields better SQ than playing silver disks. Similarly that ethernet wiring yields better SQ than wi-fi, and that it’s beneficial to use even a very inexpensive ethernet switch. Yet it’s all 16/44.
You have an Aurender server. Typically "server" is a hard disk where the digital audio files are stored. I don’t know too much about Aurenders, but I suppose that they relate to a hard disk either within or without. As for ripping disks, if you want to experiment, the popular free computer program for doing that is Exact Audio Copy. Of course a benefit of playing your own music from a hard disk is that it can be done from your easy chair.
|
@jc4659
A distinguishing feature of Curious Cables is that the 5V line is run outside of the cable, presumably so as not to compromise the flow of digital data through the cable.
In the case of the Musetec, and some other fine DACs, the 5V cable is superfluous; it is not used at all. The 5V is provided for internally in the DAC. This is a far better solution. Otherwise a Curious cable is a fine cable. If you have one, it can surely be used.
My personal recommendation is for a solid core cable. These come in copper, silver plated copper and pure silver. I currently use one in copper, but will be experimenting.
As for a reclocker, I’m not sure I understand exactly what you have in mind. Some of us use bridges or streamers or decrapifiers that do have clocks in them.
|
My own experience is that the 5V line does not have to be blocked, though some do that. I have heard no difference. I'm guessing that Pin 1 in the Musetec is not connected to anything. So called "handshaking" is done by the ground wire (Pin 4) which absolutely must be connected or the USB connection will not be made. It can actually be disconnected after the handshake and some people do that.
|
@ja_kub_sz
I agree with @dbb. The Amanero board in the Musetec does exactly what the Matrix 2 SPDIF DDC does, converting the USB input to I2S. Moreover, it has the advantage of better clocks, a more sophisticated power supply and one less cable. Of course anything is possible and if it sounds better to you, then just enjoy it.
A better case can be made, I think, for a device with ethernet input and I2S output that will bypass the USB entirely. I believe we have already discussed that possibility.
|
@charles1dad
In the case of a DAC that one hasn’t heard, IMO there’s still more to go on than one’s gut. A DAC, like any other component, can’t give more than it has. So, with a bit of experience, one needs to look inside, a proposition that has served me well. As I have a strong interest in the DAC category generally, and because I respect what you have written, I looked for all the information I could discover about the Swiss manufactured Merason, not all that easy to come by. Based on its insides it strikes me as closer to the LKS MH-DA004 DAC, the predecessor of the 005 and a terrific DAC itself. But even as compared to the 004 it has, let’s call them, "far less expensive" chips, and a smaller power supply. Input is limited to 192kHz PCM (LKS: PCM to 384kHz) and no DSD at all (LKS: up to DSD512). Minimalist by design? Or by cost? In any event I think this clearly justifies the "less sophisticated" characterization most especially re: the 005. At this time I believe it is short-sighted to be satisfied with Red Book alone, especially at a $5500 price. Modern DACs are doing very well with Red Book. But still, if you haven’t yet heard well-done higher resolution, including DSD, you have some good listening to look forward to.
|
@yyzsantabarbara
There are too many reasons to prefer separates rather than an all-in-one digital component. I’m sure I don’t have to list them for you. I will always go separates.
On another of your posts, I finally figured out who you wer talking about. I first heard about LKS DACs when Ric posted about the 004 on the Asylum. It had just been launched and represented a major advance over the 003. He was recommending it, straight from the factory, to a professional classical musician and occasional recorded music critic, who is a major participent and moderator on that forum. I’ve always considered classical music to be the most difficult to reproduce both because it can be the most complex and because it can be compared to the real classical music event. For all of these reasons, and including Ric’s reputation, I thought it was a DAC worth looking into. I did an extensive due diligence and eventually went for it myself. As you know, because the LKS DAC has the fundamentals right and because of its wide open architecture is became one of Ric’s modification products. Because of its quality from the factory though, there wasn’t very much he could do to improve it. It was and is his least expensive mod, I think.
|
