Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

@jc4659

Apos has been showing "sold out" for over a year.

If you want to know of availability at Shenzhen I suggest you ask them.

@jc4659 

The chat function on Shenzhen seems not to be working.  That's quite unusual.  I suggest you try it tomorrow.  They can also be reached by email.  I don't think that has anything to do with availability of the product.

A couple of weeks ago I contacted the factory about an order for someone.  I was told that even if not in stock, they could produce one within a week.

If Shenzhen fails to come alive soon, you can contact the factory by email and inquire there.  All things being equal you might prefer Shenzhen for their 30 day no question return privilege.  I don't know that anyone has used it though. 

@jc4659

I just received an email reply from Young at Shenzhen:

"The Musetec DAC might take 3-5 days before shipping. We could help to match the Black Friday sale price for you"

There you go . . . and the price is right!

I suggest an email to Shenzhen directed to Young with this quote.  support@shenzhenaudio.com

@jc4659

It is right here before my eyes

shenzhenaudio.com/products/l-k-s-audio-mh-da005-es9038-pro-x-2-dac-coaxial-opt-aes-ebu-flagship-audio-decoder

Just write to Young at support@shenzhenaudio.com and tell him what you want.  It should not be complicated.

@jc4659

For wharfy it was 12 days from ordering until delivery. That doesn’t mean it will be the same for you, but it looks good.

Shenzhen seems often to give a longer expected delivery date so as not to be bothered with Where’s my stuff? emails.

Good luck. As you can see by the responses, it’s worth the wait.  Could be the last DAC for many people, including me.

@wharfy 

"One more update--played my better half her CD copy of The Nutcracker. She remarked that she heard instruments she did not know were there."

How reminiscent of the golden analog days.  We used to purchase a new cartridge, perhaps our first moving coil (expensive and consumable), and rush to hear what it does on familiar disks.  What would we hear that was formerly hidden in those grooves?

I trust all still goes well with the DAC.
 

@arafiq 

No.  However, it's been compared to the Holo May in great detail on this board,  It's also been compared to the Mola Mola Tambaqui at head-fi.

@jc4659

In my "Buying Direct from China" thread (before it was commandeered by the Audiogon Politicos*) I commented on the high ethical standard I have always found when buying from China or Japan. If you ever need support from the factory, based on my own experience, I think you will also find it is there. Always a bit of normal anxiety when ordering from far away.

*An unfortunate indicator of what has befallen the US in the last several years.

The DAC is made in Jiaxing, close to Shanghai. My guess is that they can be drop-shipped from there.  But I think Shanghai is in the current Covid area.

In any event, shipping time commitment is a good question to put to Shenzhen Audio before ordering. Email provides a paper record.

@lemonhaze 
When someone says "if it performs as described" seems to me a clear suggestion that perhaps it does not.  You don't need a question mark to question what's been written here.  And, of course you're free to trust or distrust, as you say.  That's all I care to say on that.

And it is not "my" thread.  One loses ownership as soon as it's posted and threads usually go their own way.  It's just that as the OP I get emailed when there is a post and there's often a question I can respond to.

So let's both have a good rest of the day.  

Cheers.

@car123
I have often recommended Audioquest Pearl as a good and safe USB cable. It’s a solid core cable. Solid core was first recommended to me for digital by a well-respected cable guru on another site. The Pearl is inexpensive, well enough made and, in my experience, does the spatial thing well. IMO it’s a great basic cable against which to test other cables. The Pearl, though, may not provide sufficient sparkle in the sound, for me, and I have been testing other cables against it myself, including one or two old cables in the closet. One never knows. The Audioquest line continues with solid core only and adds different amounts of silver coating all the way up to solid core silver, and it gets expensive. Amazon USA has a liberal return policy so you can try a cable pretty easily. Since there is no 5V current running through our cable we can concentrate entirely on how the digital signal is carried.

I found this discussion on USB cables quite valuable.  Perhaps you have seen it.

@twoleftears
You may be perfectly correct, though this DAC has hardly "hit the big time." No one has ever said this was the best DAC in the world, only that it represents value. The problem for many audiophiles is the lack of reliability of even the "professional" reviews, never mind the many amateurs. Stereophile, perhaps the best, has DACs ranging from $1406 to $30,000 on its A+ list. It’s ridiculous. Do you remember what the A+ list was defined to be initially? I, for one, read the reviews principally to find out what the physical product is. I then dig deeper, if possible, to find out what’s inside the component for it cannot give more than it has. My best purchase decisions, though, were made by looking for lots of user comments, just like those here.

As you can see this thread has been populated principally by owners who have purchased subsequent to the start of the thread. Many have integrated the DAC into very high quality audio systems. I continue to be astonished at the thread’s growth.

@lordmelton

That LKS unit is a very old model, even proceeding the LKS 003 IIRC. That and the Singxer were popular before the DAC makers brought the function on board. It cannot be as good as what you already have in the Musetec. But who knows?

@audioman58

As reported here earlier, Apos comes up first for some reason whenever Musetec is Googled. It’s been "out of stock" there for over a year.

@debjit_g

Very interesting, and thanks for the report. The Musetec was on USAudiomart for only 5 days and the asking price was $2900. As it sold rather quickly I’m guessing the asking price was met, or close; that’s just a guess. If so, that’s pretty good, I think. Many folks paid under $3000 for the DAC on sale.

The seller was pt999 who had a Holo May and posted his detailed comparison of the two DACs right here.  He said he was keeping the DAC, after first deciding to return it. His last and most detailed post is on 12-24-2021 at 1:49am, p. 7 if you’re sorting new first. He describes his audio system as a high sensitivity system built around Edgarhorns. In any event it’s a very useful data point for potential purchasers of either DAC, Holo or Musetec.

@lordmelton 

They sold (or sell) a matching LPS for it.

@debjit_g

This post comparing the Musetec and the Holo May was by teknorob23. He had earlier written here that he preferred the Musetec to the $13,400 Mola Mola Tambaqui. And, of course, I’m certain based on a lot of reading on the subject that some will prefer the Tambaqui.

I’m beginning to think even more seriously seriously about what he and others have written that there are a number of DACs in this "class" and the choice will very much depend on preferences and associated components.

There are no winners; there are no losers.

@dbb 

Your post is, as always, enlightening.  As you write, it is a matter of perspective.  I remember old posts on Audiogon suggesting that the Holo May R2R provides a middle-of-the-hall sound rather than the up-close sound of a SD chip.  This is suggestive of a more blended sound and might seem at odds with any exaggerated sense of space and separation.  I guess my point is that no one is evaluating a DAC in isolation.  The DAC exists in an environment of the digital chain preceding it, and of the analog components following it.  The other half of the environment is the musical genre.  Change any of these and a DAC evaluation or comparison will change.

In any event I'm glad the thread you initiated is out front again.  You have demonstrated what a review might be.  This Instead of simply throwing out a few conclusory words. 

@turcoda
Sorry to hear about these difficulties. I have been using this device for over a year now with absolutely no problems. I use it primarily to play music but have used it with videos, both from DVDs and streams, though with my set-up sound for those those go in by spdif. This is the first I’ve heard about any extended difficulties either with the 005 or the earlier 004 which I had for 6 years, also with an Amenaro board. There was one problem reported here installing the Windows driver (fixed immediately) and some had questions about the DPLL settings.

The first thing to determine, I think, is whether your 005 is defective. It would be the first defective 005 or 004 I would have ever heard of, but it is possible. Second, you say that you have been playing it for 3 weeks. That might still not be a full break in but it certainly IS enough for you to know how it sounds. If this $3K DAC it doesn’t satisfy your needs far better than a $1K DAC and you have the opportunity to return it, then perhaps you should. After all, SQ is the bottom line. Same if it is defective.

You wrote earlier about your concern regarding galvanic isolation which has principally to do with the relationship between a USB input device (like a computer) and the USB receiving board, like the Amenaro. You sounded very much like you know exactly what you wanted. The Amenaro is one of the two promenent boards used in most of the best performing DACs. I would have supposed, based on what you wrote, that you would have investigated Amanero to see if it would meet your requirements.

At this time I use a SOtM device as a DLNA bridge betwen a small lap-top computer running JRiver and the DAC. However when my 004 was new, the computer was plugged directly into the DAC. There was absolutely no background static at all. There was no noise that I could hear at the time, though when I added the SOtM bridge it did sound quieter. The DAC’s behavior in that regard was exactly as it should have been IMO.

You should have no driver problem at all. But that’s a local issue between you and Windows, I assume.

There are plenty of folks here who would be happy to help, and I’m sure they’ll be chiming in. But as has already been suggested you need to describe your set-up in detail.

Good luck in dealing with the issues.

@curiousjim 

It's for the remote.

@turcoda

If you’re a software engineer you must know more about this stuff than I do.

But, the laptop I use is a small old ASUS running a Pentium and it works perfectly using JRiver. I have often thought that because it’s cheap and small (running storage much like a thumb drove) it may be quiet. Perhaps you can borrow a small laptop. Then at least you will see definitively where the problem is. Or perhaps buy one cheap second hand.

Alternatively, and very inexpensively, you can try a Raspberry Pi. If it works at all you can add an inexpensive "hat" for improved performance. That might keep you going for a while.

I guess the message is to get it away from your powerful computer if you can, and see if it was the culprit.

@turcoda

I don’t see the point of a USB card. In effect the DAC is your USB card.

If you send it back to Shenzhen, tell them it’s defective with the video as proof. That should minimize your cost to return, perhaps to nothing. They might give you the option of a new one. Your call.

However, they might forward the video to the factory for comment. Actually you might do the same and short-circuit the communication. I suggest that you do. Send Jinbo the video. Jinbo is the engineer who designed the 005, and aims to please his customers. If anyone can advise you or can spot the defect, surely it is him. He will definitely answer within 24 hours, probably with a very brief, but to the point, response. He is: bleerock(at)126.com

@turcoda 
@kairosman 
I've had my 005 for a year now and have followed the very busy 004 forum on head-fi (4353 posts) for over 5 years before that. I've read about a lot of interaction with Jinbo and have had some myself.  He is proud of his products and will want to help.  IMO he doesn't need to be "incentivized" in the manner kairosman is suggesting.  I have said earlier here, in response to another question, that he's not Paul McGowan.  He will likely not advise, for example, on which cable or streamer to use.  But when it comes to the operation of his products, there's no reason to be concerned.  The time difference, though, may stretch out the communication.

You know Mr. @milpai, there's an easy solution for your dilemma.  

You've been lurking around here since mid-November AND you've done your due diligence AND you think the Musetec is overpriced for what it is physically AND it costs more than other DACs made in China AND you think that labor is cheaper in China than where the Okto is made (It is not!) AND the Okto is less expensive and has great reviews from the commercial press AND the HOLO is a better value because it has a greater number of parts.  

Consequently it should be very easy for you to cross the Musetec off your "Options" list and be done with it.  Have a good day.  You should be happier now.

You might want to be careful as you consider the Musician Aquarius DAC or any DAC from Musician, especially what you see and read about it. Apparently much of Musician’s output is sourced from Denafrips but may or may not be up to the Denafrips standard. You also might want to reevaluate the great reviews given as it is reliably reported that the company GIVES, rather than loans, DACs to reviewers.

More info here. The guys in this video are pretty reliable IMO: 

As for gifts to reviewers, it’s called an "accommodation" price, essentially the wholesale price--50 to 60 per cent of retail if it was new. So when a reviewer writes that he liked it so much he bought it, that’s an entirely different value assessment than his readers face. Moreover, accommodation units often go pretty quickly to the used market.

I had not heard, before Musician, of simply giving a new audio component to the reviewer. A bad review and he has a door stop for sale. A good review and there’s money to be made. Daniel1969 wrote in audiophilestyle.com, "I bought the sample Musician DAC from Sandu..." @debjit_g says he won’t go into the name of an American company that does that. I say, please do. Not surprised about cables. Their margins are tremendous so the give-away means very little. Plus there’s possible continuing publicity as the reviewer hooks up new components for review with those same cables.

While a well established print reviewer might have the liberty to give a bad review (or at least one that seems bad when you read between the lines) I don’t think that’s the case for internet reviewers. IMO manufacturers simply won’t take the chance of sending a product for review to someone who doesn’t churn out favorable reviews.

I agree that the quality of parts and layout can give a pretty good clue as to sound. Of course you have to know something about audio to evaluate the build of a component. A component cannot give more to the sound than it has good stuff within. I also made a decision on the Musetec, and other components, to a great extent on what was inside. I recall appreciating Goldensound’s review of the Holo May and the detail in which he revealed the details of its manufacture. It gave me the impresson he’s a serious guy. Most commercial reviewers, even the better ones, merely recite the component’s advertising copy to describe what’s inside.

I value the opinions of people who actually paid for their components, especially when there is a reasonably good number of them.

@benzman

The Musetec DAC is, I believe, a true balanced design. Whether you achieve a significant benefit from that may depend upon your related components.

Glad it appears to be working for you as you like, it will get better as it breaks in, but as others have written, break-in may not be a straight line.

Hi @wharfy

Good to know things are going well.

Using either the extreme right button on the DAC, or the 3rd button down on the right of the remote, and while the DAC reads out PCM, the DPLL cycles, going up until it reaches 15, and then going to 1, 2, etc. You’re looking for the lowest trouble free setting.

IIRC the two cycle settings are for PCM and DSD, not for particular inputs.

Hope this helps.

@kclone

At the beginning of the digital era some CDs were recorded with a slightly different eq than most as a noise reduction technique. That was called pre-emphasis. CD players automatically look for the pre-emphasis "flag" on the disk and make an adjustment called de-emphasis. However if you rip a CD that has the pre-emphasis, it will sound brighter/thinner that it would on a CD player. So some DACs make provision for de-emphasis. Since these CDs are very old and very few, best just to keep the de-emphasis off.

Great that @benzman  settled in with a DAC he really prefers and that seems to integrate well with the rest of his system.  And kudos to him for getting that fine DAC at an advantageous price.  No one has ever claimed the Musetec was the best DAC ever  and in all situations.  That being said, the Musetec used was not broken in fully and not used through its most advantageous input, USB.  But his money, his choice.  Now just to relax with the music.  Just a final word putting the return cost in some context.  Return privileges are all over the place.  The cost to return a Schiit Yggdrasil to California, for example, can be $148 plus transportation both ways.  The cost of returning a Wyred 4 Sound DAC within 30 days could be $675 plus shipping to California.

@sns uses a tube system that he says creates even number harmonic distortion that may account for differences in perception of a DAC as compared to benzman's solid state one.  Mine is also a tube based system, Rogue, but it is definitely known for NOT being "tubey" while still providing tube benefits.  As some of us, committed to the sound of acoustic instruments in real space have noted, our search is NOT for our taste in musical reproduction. We do not seek a DAC that sounds good.  A DAC is not a musical instrument.  Neither is an amplifier or a speaker.   We look for components that recreate our experience with unamplified music as closely as possible.  There are well known components DESIGNED to sound inaccurate and euphonic, certain British speakers being notable examples.  

@lordmelton, Very interesting.  If I understand you correctly, you're comparing the AES/EBU input port on the Musetec to the the spdif input and hdmi output of the USB to I2s converter into the hdmi input of the Musetec.  Is that right?  If so, what is the source that is outputting either the AES/EBU or the spdif?  Also, have you considered the LKS power supply made for the unit?  It costs a lot less than $1500 as would an excellent SBooster, for example. 

Hi @lordmelton,
If I understand you correctly, you are NOT comparing going from the (Aurender by USB  to the Musetec) to going from the (Aurender by USB to the LKS and then by I2S to the Musetec).  Is that correct?  While that comparison does not permit you to do quick switching from one alternative to the other, it would be the most relevant comparison IMO.  

@lordmelton @debjit_g 

I am not here to doubt the perceptions of others.  Nonetheless it is a strain on my own understanding of how things work to believe that the 10 year old separate LKS USB to I2S device can outperform that very same function within the Musetec.  The Musetec does it with an updated circuit board, more and better clocks and a more advanced power supply.  But in audio, it seems, everything is possible.

As for the general issue of I2S, since there are now many DACs with I2S inputs, I wonder whether the topic with all its complications and wire configurations and associated difficulties deserves broader exposure with a thread of its own.

@jeony

Although it seems not everyone will agree, my own thoughts on this subject, specifically for the Musetec, is that using a DDC that converts USB to I2S is not an optimal way to increase SQ. Musetec has put a lot of engineering and quality parts into doing that very same function extremely well. It is one of the outstanding features of the DAC. The devices spoken of merely duplicate what is already being done. IMO there are other proven ways of boosting SQ into Musetec inputs. See what @sns has written, for ex.

Theoretically, but questionable as to practicality, would be using a DDC that has an RJ45 as an INPUT and I2S as the output thereby bypassing the USB stage entirely. This eliminates all concerns whatever about USB limitations including those of USB cables. There are such DDCs. Do a search if you think it worthwhile to pursue this path.

That being said, IIUC the Denafrips Iris has no dip switches or other manner of adjusting for the lack of I2S standard in cables. However, unlike some other DDCs, it allows both for HDMI and RJ45 cable outputs matching the input side of the Musetec. A custom RJ45 cable is relatively easy for anyone to make.

@sns

I’ve also tried taping over USB pin 1 with no effect before I realized what was going on in th 004. Obviously there’s nothing in the LKS or Musetec at the other end of line 1, so taping has no point.

As for power. The LKS 004 had all but the transformer of an LPS on a card that was placed above the Amanero Board. A 5V tap of the 50 Watt transformer powering the digital side provided the power to that board. A couple of people at head-fi actually mounted a separate small 5V transformer in the case connected directly to the AC power. I don’t think this mod was particularly popular. My recollection is that folks considered the general nature of the power for the board to be fine. IIRC someone tried a Singxer USB to I2S device and it didn’t outperform the on-board Amanero system. That was in the early days when people were wondering whether to buy the less or more expensive version of the 004. Mods, though. for the board above the Amanero seemed to be popular and worthwhile. But it’s been a while as I haven’t followed the LKS discussion at all since getting the Musetec. What seems clear is that fitting a much more powerful system for USB to I2S into the case called for Musetec to reengineer the whole thing and come up with the super capacitor solution.

I believe what I am reading about here IIUC is not a comparison of the USB input with the I2S input. It seem to me rather a comparison of 2 USB inputs, one using the internals of the Musetec USB system and the other using the separate LKS system, both feeding I2S into the internals of the DAC.

I have offered my thoughts on this elsewhere in this thread.

@car123 

I'd like to understand what you are doing, but I haven't quite made it.  Perhaps you can help.  

As I understand it the Sonore is a DDC and has a USB in and an I2S out.  The Aurender is a combination server and DAC with analog outs, a USB out and ethernet and optical in.  

Are you comparing [ethernet into the Aurender with its USB out to the Musetec] on one hand to [ethernet into the Aurender with its USB out to the Sonore and its I2S into the Musetec] on the other?

If not, perhaps you can describe it for us from the beginning to the end of each try.

Thanks.

I recognize that not everything in audio is predictable and also that different does not always mean better to all listeners. That being said, my own biases lead me to try to make full use of the USB to I2S in the Musetec with the advantages that its designer has given us. These advantages include an excellent USB board, three exceptional clocks, a sophisticated battery-like DC power supply, and the shortest possible I2S connection.

At one point in my own DAC adventure I looked carefully into devices that went directly from ethernet to I2S. Such a device would bypass any USB connections, cables, etc. I quickly learned that while such a device might provide a theoretical benefit, in practice it would likely provide less than I already had. Beekhuyzen got the same result.

So my own road has been to try to provide very high quality USB signal into the DAC. I keep my media on a NAS and I use JRiver on a small lap-top. This has eventually led me to digital bridges (ethernet in, USB out) run as DLNA devices. My first was using an Oppo 501 (though coax out) much as car123 was using his Aurender, the only difference perhaps being the DLNA control through JRiver. Not saying here that the Oppo is equal to the Aurender, but each used in this very odd way they might be comparable.

I soon discovered that this route into the DAC could be improved dramatically using devices more sophisticated, and with USB out, than using a small part of a DAC-streamer. I eventually wound up with an SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo and an SBooster power supply for it. Under the control of JRiver this device reclocks and otherwise decrapifies the data from the NAS and sends it directly to the DAC. It is hardly the last word in devices performing this function, but I am delighted with it. Furthermore, it makes full use of what the Musetec provides.

The other part of this puzzle is the section of a USB cable, and they can be very, very different. More on this later, with at least one surprising result.

Oops. That should be: 

The other part of this puzzle is the selection of a USB cable, and they can be very, very different. More on this later, with at least one surprising result.

I’m here to report that my Musetec 005 sounds as good today as it did yesterday. So eveyone can take a breath.

It is notable that there are several people here who purchased the Musetec and compared it directly to a DAC that they had before and that ranked very high on amirm’s list. They prefered the performance of the Musetec and were happy to replace their old DAC with the Musetec.

I’m confident that there will be follow-ups to what has been written. I would choose not to ridicule the amirm post and thereby emulate the know-nothings who are responding to the amirm post by ridiculing those who find the audio performance of the DAC to be exceptionally fine, and the DAC a very good value.

I wrote to the designer and manufacturer, Jinbo Li, this morning to tell him of amirm’s review. He responded though it was late at night for him. I have never known whether it’s in his English or Google translate:

__________________________________________

Thank you so much for sharing. I read this post carefully.

I can explain the content of the subject test through our design experience.

It took me more than three years to design DA005. Roughly estimated, I had done nearly ten different designs. In the test, I found that if all the parameters were set according to the "best" of the instrument test, the final sound was not what I wanted.

Our development process also confirmed the widely debated idea that hiFI systems are generally not sound good or bad through test instruments. Any experienced electronics engineer can do it well, and it doesn’t require much effort or musical awareness. I don’t really want to argue too much about that. The customers who have heard about our products have the best say.

__________________________________________

I am not an electronics expert at all but do offer some comments on what he wrote.

It sounds like he’s not surprised at all, nor disappointed about the findings.

Jinbo says that it is relatively easy for an experienced electronics engineer to design a DAC that measures well. I believe him. We have seen many DACs from all over the world that seem to measure very well in the amirm tests. Some are relatively inexpensive. Their audio quality? Often, not so much.

I have thought, from the beginning, that this DAC was developed with a lot of listening. It motivated my early purchase. My reasoning was that there were a great many expensive parts inside. Those two GAD gold and silver foil capacitors, for example, cost about $95 each. I don’t think a designer puts components of that quality (and expense) into a unit without careful listening and a determination that they make a difference. For unlike a popular DAC chip, perhaps, they will not add to the marketing potential. The same may be said of the O-Ring transformer with silver-plated windings, or the bank of super-capacitors, or the . . . . there’s lots of stuff listed on the mu-sound.com 005 web page. Truly, a designer’s DAC.

He goes on to say that maximizing measured results often resulted in a reduction of sound quality in his estimation. Given the result, it’s hard to take issue with that assertion. One of the interesting aspects of the Musetec 005 design is that it achieves a very high level of audio performance with a very conventional design. By high level I mean (besides our listening) it has been compared with some very expensive DACs and while some have preferred one over the other it has never, it seems, been embarrassed by the comparison. And by the conventional design, I mean just ESS chips, no FPGA digital to analog function, no discrete R2R, no "Ring DAC", etc. Just a design that can be seen in dozens of other DACs, but refined to bring the audio that it does. An exception though for the super capacitors and associated circuitry.

My only disappointment is that he does publish technical specifications that one should be able to replicate with technical tests.

I received this more extended letter from Jinbo Li this morning. He is the designer and manufacturer of the Musetec. I will comment in a follow-up post.

I wrote some words. I think it’s necessary to tell you my opinion.

The development of DA005 has undergone a lot of testing and listening. We focus more on listening tests. In my first few years in the field of audio product development, I also focused on instrument testing to study various data results of products through testing. However, it is finally found that we cannot express the actual listening feeling of audio equipment through the limited test method of audio analyzer. For example, in the process of development, it is very easy to see an interesting phenomenon that capacitors, resistors, wires and even solder of different brands or series will directly change the sound, but when these parts are changed, we can’t check the change of test data through the analyzer. Once I made two DACs and did a blind listening test with my friends to verify some conclusions. I used exactly the same circuit board, resistor, capacitor, IC, etc. in short, the two DACs are exactly the same except for the different solder. As a result, the two DACs showed completely different sound styles when replaying music, and even there was a gap in sound quality, such as their dynamic expression of sound, transparency and so on. The two DACs are made of exactly the same materials, so we can’t distinguish them by audio analyzer.

I know there is an argument that wire and fuse are metaphysics, and "burn-in" is also metaphysics.

Before I know enough about it, I also agree that these are metaphysics. But it is likely that there are some "data" that we cannot detect through the existing analyzer.

I have seriously thought about why the "burn-in" will bring obvious sound changes. Even the newly welded equipment after standing for a few days without electricity will have a more natural listening feeling than the newly welded equipment. The basic components of audio equipment - resistor, capacitor, inductor, solder, IC, etc. are composed of basic metal atoms and compound molecules. When the machine is powered on, these parts can be activated, electrons and ions migrate continuously, and even the materials inside the component vibrate due to the change of current frequency. This process will produce some changes inside the component. But it may not be a favorable change, so we need to try different components repeatedly. The goal is to find those components that are just right for the change after full activation. For example, it usually takes at least 5-7 days to determine whether a type of capacitor is suitable. If there is not enough time, the sound will be different every day.

Because of the existence of the above situation, it will directly lead to a problem, that is, the time and energy spent by listening and adjustment is far greater than the instrument test. For this reason, we usually need at least three years to update a product. Carefully update products, that is why we have many loyal customers.

I usually think that if there is a analyzer which can effectively detect these changes, the process of developing products will be much easier and faster.

I respect ASR’s test. They have excellent test equipment, even have some authority. but I don’t think this test conclusion has a direct relationship with the sound performance of the product. However, I will seek a high-performance testing instrument to review the ASR test. If my customers are dissatisfied with the instrument test performance of the product, we will update the design to the customers who need it in the next few months to make the updated product have good enough instrument test performance. We will extend the warranty period of the product in case of any delay.

This is my follow-up to the publication of Jinbo Li’s short letter yesterday and his more extended communication this morning.  He is the designer/engineer and manufacturer of the Musetec DAC.  After a day of reflection I’m becoming more and more appreciative of the normally taciturn Jinbo who says, effectively:

Any old competent engineer can design a DAC that tests well.
I’m interested in music, so what I do is try hard to design a product to sound good. Period. Measurements notwithstanding. They just fall out, and are what they are.

For example, as one user has written elsewhere, "the majority of the distortions comes from the discrete I/U and output stage. The output amplifier and buffer has no feedback (I think). Without it the distortion values cannot compete against integrated op amps."

I would not have him change my own DAC to meet the need for a better specification.

I wonder what the audiophile public will make of a product that is designed only by listening without reference to tecnical specs, and that does not publish technical specifications. One thing it may do is to define better the term "audiophile."

I did advise him that when you publish technical specifications you invite tests that should confirm those specifications. So perhaps he should revise that part of his site.

@sns
I suppose we’ll have to wait and pose the question when he puts forward an option. My guess is that it will compromise sound. I’m not certain why he is proposing to go in that direction. I know he has always felt a great obligation to his customers.

As for the two pictures of the Musetec interior. It would appear that they were taken at various stages of the design of the Musetec. Recall that the designer said he made upwards of 10 designs and did a lot of listening before decided upon the final design for release.

Notice on the one with the black case that there is no connection between the digital board and the analog board. It could not, therefore, be a working model; it was one somewhere in the process.

I received this message late last night from Jinbo Li, designer and manufacturer of the Musetec:

Our current testing equipment can’t compare with ASR’s equipment. Their equipment is the highest grade at present. As I said in my previous email, I really don’t pay much attention to testing performance. But I think the real test performance fully meets the requirements. The main problem in ASR test is that SINAD is not good. This is mainly caused by multiple harmonics. The overall base noise of DAC is still very low. The main reason for this is that, as friends of audiogon forum said, low negative feedback at the output stage will increase distortion, but the sound will have rich texture, while deep negative feedback will make the test data better, but it will obviously make the sound colder and drier. Many experienced enthusiasts understand this situation.

Products serve people. We must recognize this before we can choose the right direction in the design.

However, I will still buy a high-end tester of the same grade as ASR equipment for verification. I hope to make some efforts next. According to the verification results, if necessary, I will update the design for some customers in need. I will try my best to serve every loyal customer friend.

It is now my intention to tell him that no one who has a Musetec 005 has yet expressed a desire for a modification that would improve measurement specifications if it is at the expense of the final sound quality as he perceives it. That note won’t go out for several hours.

As an aside, many of us find tubed electronics and/or analog sound to do very well at sounding like the real thing. At the same time we know they cannot compete in specifications with solid state and digital.

Yes, there are definitely two camps.

I have to admit that I should have stopped reading ASR. But some of the opinions there are unforgettable so I had ti go back. On p. 15 there is a post by AudioEd. He says he has a number of fine DACs including the Musetec and he likes how the Musetec sounds. He likes it better than his Chord Dave, an RME ADI-2 Pro FS B and a Topping, but not quite as much as his Holo May KTE. The responses he gets are so typical from that site.

Here’s the first:

"Perhaps you should make reasonable statements? How many times does it have to be pointed out that a state of the art dac has no proper sound? You just provide a list of several very costly dacs and then throw out wild guesses about their sound quality. . . You can go on and burn your money, but please, spare us with your dac sound quality nonsense."

And then another:

"Here we go again. Please go back and review prior comments (and perhaps the educational section offered to you elsewhere on ASR pertaining to the technology behind DACs) to comprehend that DACs shouldn’t have a ’sound’"

And another:

"People will probably bet big money that you won’t be able to distinguish any of the DACs in a controlled blind listening test. . . Every alleged sound difference you perceive today is due to unconscious bias of a sighted test. No human is immune to that. Therefore only ABX Tests are meaningful."

I could go on, but you get the point.

@toddk31 

I just thought I’d echo what @2pol wrote.

Your LKS 004, like the one I had, would probably test about the same as the Musetec 005. Yet you liked the work of the designer enough, just as I did, to order the Musetec.

If you haven’t sent it back yet, have you considered giving it a try in your system? I’m certain Jason would extend his return offer to give you that chance. You’d have nothing to lose. Jason would have nothing to lose.

I think you feel cheated because of the published specs, and I understand that and have written so to Jinbo. But if you have the chance to listen to the DAC in your system, you should probably take advantage of it. It’s an interesting circumstance and we’d all be glad to hear of your reaction to its sound performance.

Best of luck however you go.

The argument over "objective" (which are often not objective) measurements vs. "subjective" (which need not be subjective) listening is as old as modern audio, perhaps older.

Some of us of a "certain" age will recall references to the "Julian Hirsch" school of objective audio reviewing. It was, at first, the only school. Julian Hirsch was the principal reviewer for "High Fidelity" magazine. It was pure measurement. No listening. It proved, for example, that cheap Japanese direct-drive turntables were better than expensive belt-drive turntables. Sometimes these were called manufacturer sanctioned measurements. I call these measurements not objective because if they don’t correspond to what you hear, you’re measuring the wrong things. They also measured electronic components for the usual specifications and "proved" that early solid state outperformed the best tubed electronics. They were busy selling whatever the mass producers were making.

So along come Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson (HP) with their iconoclastic choice of listening to systems and components. Though called and still called subjective, they showed there was an objective side to listening. That was an educated ear’s comparison to acoustic music in real space. HP soon invented a vocabulary of sound including the concept of "sound stage" He made it a requirement that his reviewers regularly attend concerts of live unamplified music. Most of that is classical. It was HP’s assertion that if a component was good on classical music it would be good on everything. The listening was always done by substituting the component into a familiar reference audio system and listening to familiar recordings, many of which were available for the reader to buy. That was followed by a discussion of how the component brought the system closer or further from the real thing. If this seems somewhat familiar to those on this thread it is because of @dbb’s outstanding writing. That kind of listener reviewing is very different from most of what I read these days which are simply multiple ways of saying, "I like it."

So this distinction between measurement and listening will go on and on. As has been shown there’s really no point to interrupting the other side’s party.

@cleeds

I like quibbling.  Quibbling is what we do here and you’re absolutely correct about Julian Hirsch. Mea culpa.

High Fidelity and what was first called Hi Fi Review were the two mass market magazines in the day They were pretty similar in approach. Hi Fi Review renamed itself Hi Fi Stereo review and then Stereo review as the industry changed. In 1989 them merged under the Stereo Review banner.

Any OP knows that after launching a thread into the air here it's impossible to account for what direction it may take.  Nevertheless, as this extensive thread is now one year old, permit this OP a few words.  

The designer/manufacturer of this DAC has produced several DACs over the past 10 years or so.  They have been sold world-wide, though mostly in Asia, principally in Hong Kong.  Over the years this very small producer has gained a following. His following has been uniquely on the basis of his DACs' sound quality.  There is no promotion; there is no hype; there is no advertising.  In all the reading I've done I have never before come across a set of measurements for the DACs going back to the LKS MH-DA002.  Several folks here, including me, have had an LKS MH-DA004 and on the basis of listening, basically said to themselves: if this is what he can do for about $1500, I MUST hear what he can do for $3200.  Others, here on this list and elsewhere, bought this DAC based on the reports only of sound quality.  I think it is fair to say that, by and large, they like what they have heard and they are quite satisfied with the purchase.  They have written as much.  Their DACs sound just as good this week as they did last week.

The designer has written that he designs by ear and not by measurement.  He says designing for measurement is realtively easy.  At various stages he says he made changes that could improve measurements but reversed them if the sound quality, as he heard it, was not as good.  If that makes people very uncomfortable, they should probably look elsewhere for a DAC.  Over the course of this audio hobby, and some of us have been into it for a long time, that approach to design used to be lauded.  The designer has given an example in the lack of any feedback in his analog stage.  A lack of feedback is often advertised, and is generally understood to yield better sound quality but poorer measurements.  Op amp chips with feedback are thought to yield a kind of clean but sterile sound, well recognized in several popular DACs on the market.   In many other areas of audio, decisions are often made in favor of devices with poorer measurements than alternatives.  That would include tubes and analog sound generally.

No one here has ever said that the Musetec is the best of all DACs.  Like any DAC it may not be for everyone.  So please, let's keep it civil.  If someone says he likes another, perhaps even less expensive, DAC better than the Musetec let's just accept that and move on.  

And can we please move beyond toddk31's adventure.  That seems to have been a very personal set of decisions, and it is over.  It certainly has opened up a useful discussion of measurements versus listening as criteria for audio component design and selection, and I do not mean to discourage continuing dialog on that.  It's as old as audio as I wrote before noting that early solid state electronics was "proven" by measurements to outperform high quality tube units.  Modern solid state?  Modern tubes? Who knows?

Finally I agree about the measurements on the Musetec web site and have written to the maker about that.  I know nothing about business practices in China and what criteria obtain there.  That site is written in Chinese; the English is Google translate.  Nonetheless, it is what it is and should be changed or deleted.

@americanspirit

I own a modified dx7 pro topping with OP Muses, a Gustrard x26 Pro and this week comes the MUSETC MH DA500.

I will perform blind listening tests by connecting them via SUPRA USB2 0.7m cable to a mcintosh mc152 amplifier via OEHLBACH XXL XLR 0.5m cable and to B&W 804 D3 speakers via QED Genesis Silver Spiral 1.5m cable.

I’ve never had a need for measurements or for blind testing to figure out if a component should stay. Does it sound like live, unamplified, music in real space, and more so than what it replaces? That’s all I want to know.

I suspect that you won’t need a "blind test" to know what you have when you turn on the Musetec with a bit of warm-up, even though not really broken in.

But I worry about the Supra USB cable. It is one of the few that I have tried and it is really opaque. When I try the Supra I have to raise the volume considerably to hear low level stuff. A low cost cable I have recommended is AudioQuest Pearl. It’s a simple solid core copper. You also won’t need a blind test to know it’s better. It’s not the best cable I’ve used but it’s pretty good and somewhere near the Supra price category, perhaps even less. However if you’ve been using the Supra for a while I suppose you should leave it on so that the difference will be the DACs and not the cable.

You haven’t, though, told us what’s at the other end of your USB cable. Also, no preamplifier? Are you using digital volume on your DACs?

@americanspirit

Evaluation of audio electronics and cables by listening is not the best way. It’s the only way.

Years ago I was a big fan of Supra cables. They were/are available in bulk at very reasonable prices in the US and I made up cables using better connectors than Supra provides. I have used two different loudspeaker cables from Supra, interconnect, power and USB. Now I use only their power cables, but have replaced the Supra cable going to my amplifier. The improvement was easy to hear. In all other applications Supra cable was easily outperformed by not very expensive alternatives. I love to experiment with cables, and I have read a lot about them. I have never before read of someone buying cable by spec. I have, though, bought cable by construction and materials.  Live and learn!

You are not getting close to what your DACs can do IMO by running your USB cable (esp. Supra) directly from your computer to your DACs, unless, perhaps, there is something very special about your computer. Also, by what you’ve written I guess you are aware of the dynamics you lose with the DACs’ volume control.

@americanspirit

Generally speaking a computer, like your Dell, is a noise machine and running USB straight out to a DAC is never advised. Sound will definitely be compromised. Some special "audio" computers (or mother boards) are offered (as recently by SOtM) and there are programmatic fixes that purport to quiet a computer down by shutting off most of its services. Otherwise, and for most people, there are ways of cleaning up the digital signal as it leaves the computer (which we sometimes refer to as "decrapifiers"). Other ways of, effectively, getting the music out of the computer can either use DLNA as I do, or use some kind of mini-computer device such as a unit incorporating a Raspberry Pi or similar board and divorcing the sound from the computer. They may, for ex., have ethernet in and USB out. just like your computer.

This goes beyond digital, but a good preamp should not be viewed as a compromise, IMO. I’ll call upon other contributors to this thread to elaborate. I think some have tried using a DAC (including this DAC) straight through and have found the addition of a preamp to enhance SQ, as well as giving more control over what you hear. Plus it restores full dynamics.

As for getting your computer out of the direct digital chain to your DACs, there are as many solutions as there are audiophiles. I know this thread is very long, but all through it folks have written about their set-ups. I use an SOtM unit as a DLNA device because I like using JRiver on my computer, but it could also be used as a stand alone with the Roon Ready or Squeezelight programs within. Again, perhaps others will chime in with advice here.

The better your digital system and your system in general, the better you will be able to hear differences among the various DACs that you have, and the Musetec that is on its way.

@americanspirit

Thanks, but I’m very happy with what I have. I have a lot of music on a NAS and control it all with JRiver on a small laptop. I use either my phone or an Android pad to run it all. What I see on the screen are album covers arranged alphabetically by composer, each with a 2 line description. When I want to stream I use BubbleUPnP again either from phone or Pad. I’m very happy with the set-up and just a one time small fee to JRiver a long time ago. As I listen mostly to classical music I can use the pad and the entire internet to read what I might want to read about what I’m hearing. I can even easily bring up full scores of what I am hearing.

I’m sure there’s stuff I don’t know, but I’ve never seen an advantage of Roon--for me.

@americanspirit 

It seems we were typing at about the same time.

I have never used Roon, so others may have suggestions about your effective use of it.

This digital stuff is an adventure.