Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

@lordmelton 

You still haven’t said if you tried Spdif or Toslink connections or plugging another USB device into the 005. My thoughts are that the other DACs you have don’t have Amanero Boards and your Super Duper Computer is incompatible with Amanero and you know this but you still think it should work.

SO YOU COMPLAIN - WORK IT OUT OLD SCHOOL

Very  rational assessment. 

Charles 

@sns 

The original recording and mastering are by far the most substantial variable for sound quality. Remastering can help, but you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I'd also suggest unless original recording done his res the differences you're hearing from recordings originally done in analog or 16/44, and then converted to hi res are likely solely due to differences in the mastering rather than the hi res itself.

👍

Charles 

I know u don’t get a lot of subjective opinion at ASR but there is a lot of good info to be had over there just like here.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. What is the "good information" that you feel is gained from ASR? This is a sincere inquiry.

Charles

@klh007

As with sns , I also own the Coincident Statement Line stage which is a brilliant combination of very high resolution and utter naturalness. A friend of mine owned the VAC Signature IIa for about 5 or 6 years. I’ve heard it during multiple and long listening sessions over those years. I think that you’ll be just fine.

Charles

@jjss49

Good morning. You once owned the AudioNote 4.1 DAC which many have praised for its natural tone and timbre as well as its emotionally involving nature. How does the 005 compare with the 4.1 in that area? Natural/authentic tone and timbre (Human voice and acoustic instruments) is probably my highest priority for audio components.

Thanks

Charles

@dbb It is hard for me to relate to the objectivism school. I don’t understand why you didn’t listen to it. Do you feel it possible that you are biased by measurements? I’m not belittling or criticizing your approach. It is just something I cannot relate to. It’s sort of like collecting cars and not driving them. I respect your approach but, again, I just can’t understand.

This was my thought process as well. I realize that Todd can do what ever he chooses to do. I understand that. I was just genuinely curious as to why on earth one would not simply "listen" to an audio component playing music rather than the obsession with getting the DAC measured. that's all. 

Best wishes to Todd.

Charles

@jjss49 

at the same time, i also got a bricasti m1se in as well, and if you know that unit, there is a bewildering # of filters to choose from... so that is taking a good bit of time to sort through for which i prefer... ugh, too much choice is a ’hardship’ 😅

A friend of mine had the Bricasti M1 SE DAC for about 4- 5 years and I've heard it multiple times in extended listening sessions. Spot on with regard to numerous filter choice/settings. I have no doubt that you'll get it sorted out.

Charles

@phastm3 

By all indications I'm familiar with the Grimm MU1 and Antipodes are upper tier excellent sounding music servers.  The issue I see with the Grimm MU1 is lack of USB . The Musetec 005 seems definitely  "optimised" for USB connectivity. Some DACs on the Other hand  are built with the intention of optimising SPDIF RCA or AES/EBU signal input. 

Charles 

Yes @jjss49 has an impressively large DAC data base and curious as to how the Musetec 005 differs/compares sonically from his Audio Note 4.1 UK-ANK and Weiss DACs. Should be informative and interesting. Listening is far more insightful than just comparing specifications and measurements.

Charles

@steakster 

This is a great thread. Sharing info about exciting new gear.

Agreed. BTW I'm familiar with the Concert Fidelity DAC and have actually listened to It. It is very good sounding.  Very organic/natural presentation with terrific musical flow and engagement. This type of DAC stands the test of time exceptionally well.

Many newer DACs (In my opinion) that place heavy emphasis on "detail"  often aren't nearly as satisfying as what you have.  There's a fine balance in achieving detail (Resolution) and emotionally involving musicality. 

Charles 

@melm 

The Oppo looks busy because it does a lot of things. But is does NOTHING really well. I own an Oppo. The Oppo is good mid-fi. People spend thousands of dollars modifying Oppos to get them to sound really good, typically twice what the Oppo originally cost

That's been my observation as well over the years. Furthermore elevated parts count is deceptive and not a barometer of the subsequent sound quality.  Some superb sounding audio components have relatively few parts.  However their individual part quaility (Rather than quantity) is high along with excellent execution of a simpler design pathway. 

Charles 

@sns

 Early marketing of cd format as 'perfect sound forever' was thought of as laughable for decades. Respect for 16/44 continues to grow over time, not so laughable today, and many moving to digital only systems.

Yep!

16/44 Redbook format is capable of superb sound quality  . The limations were due to the playback hardware components.  As this was figured out, Redbook has continued to improve and demonstrate its inherent sonic quality. 

Charles 

I've stumbled across this thread recently and find it very interesting.  I appreciate the information,  thoughtful insight and mature decorum and behavior amongst the various posters. The Musetec 005 seems to be a very high quality good sounding DAC.  This and the Merason DAC1 (Another recent DAC discovery) are both compelling  and intriguing below the radar digital  components. My suspicion is that both sound excellent. 

@melm I  read your very recent comments and I share much with your perspective with regard to low level detail/information and what constitutes high  level "musicality ". Very well stated.

Charles 

@melm

and the proof will always be in the listening.

Absolutely correct and that is all that matters to me. How convincingly a component reproduces music is by far the most critical criteria. I wasn’t directly comparing the 2 DACs, rather they both are similar in the praise they garner for high quality sound and lack of big brand name recognition.

I wouldn’t say the Merason DAC1 is less sophisticated, less features and flexibility? Agree, it is minimalist by design . My only interest in them centers around how well each presents Redbook CD playback. I suspect that both DACs will do this format rightful justice. My gut tells me that both would impress.

Charles

@melm

Once again I appreciate your point of view and I do understand your perspective. One thing that I’ve come to recognize is defining what one’s objective and goals are must be thoroughly sorted out. IOW know what you want. Merason opted to forego DSD and MQA , philosophically they chose the path of PCM Redbook CD playback at what they consider a premium level.

They readily acknowledge that this is not going to find favor with everyone and these people will be better served with other DAC alternatives. I understand their product priorities and direction. In my initial post I wasn’t comparing Merason DAC1 and Musetec 005. I mentioned them as I find each individually interesting and appealing in their own way.

That’s why I openly concede that in terms of DAC features connectivity and flexibility I give the nod to the 005. Quite frankly in the marketplace they very likely appeal to different segments of listeners. I’ve heard DSD (Via a friend’s Bricasti and Playback Designs DACs ) and it is not a big deal or attraction for "my" needs. Surely it is for others. So this is strictly a personal choice scenario.

My interest and focus is achieving (Maintaining)  upper tier level CD playback so Merason’s philosophical and design approach works for me. Reading multiple posts on this thread lead me to believe that the Musetec is more than capable of achieving this task as well. In hindsight I should have been clearer in stating that I’m not directly comparing the 2 DACs.

Rather these are DACs with differing approaches and yet I find them both worthy of further attention. Just as I have no reason to doubt the very positive testimony on this thread, people who’s ears/taste I highly respect say that the Merason DAC1 sounds stunningly good. So very likely each is quite special in their respective ways.

Charles

@melm

 But advocates of upsampling claim that even the finest mastered 16/44 files can have their SQ enhanced even more.  HQPlayer, for one, has built a business on that proposition.

Yes I'm very aware of those who hold this opinion (And those who do not). I haven't been committed to a deep delve to determine the proposed superiority of upsampling .

My only point was to acknowledge just how superb 16/44 Redbook CD can sound when one assembles a thoughtful system consisting of high quality digital hardware. Hardware in my observation has been the major bottleneck in exploiting the full potential of this format. 

Charles 

It seems that some are confusing  "over sampling"  with "upsampling".   They are entirely different processes.  A NOS (Non over sampling) DAC can still be designed to "upsample".

@sns 

I look forward to your listening comparison of good quality 16/44 and upsampled digital  playback.

Charles 

@sns 

Thoughtful and insightful post. Synergy and compatibility aspects of audio products reign supreme in my opinion. 

Charles 

@sns 

Thank you.

Charles 

Fwiw, I think it's great to have multiple really good options, and impressions from people regarding what they've found to work well in the different approaches. Good discussion, imo.

Agree 100%

Always good to learn and appreciate how various people construct their audio systems in the pursuit of better sound quality. There is a strong component of art in the mix.

Charles

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."

Virtually all mass produced entry level DACs/CD players made by the mainstream brands follow the same recipe. Op-Amps (Inexpensive off the shelve varieties) utilized for I/V conversion and analog output stage duties.

They employ generous amounts of NFB (Negative feedback) and do one thing consistently well, they yield very good test measurements and specifications. How do they reproduce music and engage the listener? Seemingly that's besides the point. They will measure quite good, mission accomplished.

Certainly it is true to say, "to each their own". I'll chose the talented designer who makes decisions .based on extensive listening and reassessment. I do not find any particular comfort with good spec numbers on paper. It has to sound very good when listening to music.

Charles

@toddk31

Your comments are interesting. You readily acknowledge that the Musetec 005 very likely sounds great (A worthy not easily achieved outcome). That would seem to be the overwhelming objective for an “audio “  component to do. If it sounds “great “ why would one get rid of it? Great sound, but disappointing measurements so it is a no go?

Did you have a listen to it within your audio system? How was it? I’m just curious as to what criteria you deem most important and necessary to enjoy listening to your preferred music reproduced and provide joy and happiness. It would seem that sounding great is a very good place to start. This has been a good discussion folks.

Thanks

Charles

@yyzsantabarbara 

I totally get the rational of @toddk31 of returning the DAC. I may have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.

I look at it this way. I am lucky I bought the DAC and listened before these measurements issues arose. Reason being I was in the camp that my gear has to both measure well and also sound good to me. I likely would have returned the DAC.

However, today I have a changed my view on the measurements as a main criteria for keeping gear. The 005 has shown me that it is not the most important factor. BTW - I said this on the ASR 005 thread and people got offended, mainly because I heard differences in DACs.

Sometimes fundamental logic has to take centerstage. you have possession of a DAC in your home with easy access to your audio system. Would not the first rational step be to placed it into the system and simply listen? if not, why not? It is puzzling that the first inclination is to ship a newly purchased and unheard DAC off to be measured. Again why not hear it first in your own familiar audio system?

It is an "audio" component which would imply that it is to be used to listen to music reproduced in one’s home. I am trying to understand the logic of how test measurements supersede the optimal opportunity to hear and judge in your own system. Interesting priorities.

Charles

@ja_kub_sz

+1

I have read by this point in my career thousands of EKGs of my patients. That EKG analogy was awfully poor and misguided. ASR and Audiogon are clearly two very different crowds. Good that they both exist and readers can simply choose what suits them best.

Charles

I would agree that misleading or exaggerated marketing by companies is not desirable. I suspect that given a choice, most reasoned audiophiles/music lovers place far more priority on how a given audio product actually sounds since this is ostensibly why it was purchased in the first place. Sonic performance > marketing hype.

Charles

@americanspirit we must not be obtuse to think that only the measurements matter, nor to think that only the senses matter.
getting these two souls to agree seems an impossible undertaking!

poor people!!!

This has not been my observation at all. The vast majority of people I encounter who rely on subjective listening do in fact have a healthy respect for measurements. You need them as a baseline/reference point to determine audio component compatibility and matching.

There is no doubt in my mind that test bench analysis is quite useful and valued. The distinction I believe is that many have come to acknowledge that these measurements won't determine/confirm the sound quality of an audio component.

I really do not understand why this is even a point of contention. How would one have any clue that they'd enjoy their music played via a product if they have not listened to it? So yes, test measurements unquestionably play an important role. They just are no reasonable substitute for critical listening evaluations.

Charles 

@americanspirit

I did not take your comments as personally aimed at me. All is well. My response was intended to be applied in the broader sense of this dialogue. BTW agree with you that the manner of discussion hear is clearly open to both sides and points of view.

Charles

@melm

 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.

Agreed +1

Much more sonic /sound quality potential to be realized based on description of current set up.

Charles

I @jjss49 
We look forward to your impressions of the Musetec.  No one has ever said that it is the best of all DACs.  If it can play comfortably in the same sandbox as some of the others you have, that will be plenty.  I appreciate your effort.  Anyone willing to plow through this whole thread of 21 pages, as you have, deserves the Audiogon medal of honor.  
 

+1

Charles

@klh007

He was quite happy with the Bricasti (Which had replaced his previous Aesthetix Pandora DAC). I thought that the M1SE was very good. He replaced it with the MSB Select DAC. As far as I know he had no reliability or customer service issues with his Bricasti. He did not use Bricasti directly connected to the power amplifier. There was always an active preamplifier in the signal chain.

Charles

@jjss49

Thank you for taking the time to do all of this comparative listening and then providing your impressions here. The big take away for me is how very close the sound quality is between these 2 DACS. It seems to me one has to resort to near nit picking and splitting hairs to find meaningful sonic differences between the two high-performing DACs.

Quite a compliment toward the 005 when one considers the Bricasti M1 SE is just over 3x the cost. And I know from personal listening experience how good the Bricasti is. Based on your comments the 005 acquitted itself exceedingly well in an overall top to bottom sense.

Your assessment certainly supports what other in this thread have favorably reported.

Charles

@sns 

Good observation and point with regard to the dual function (DAC-streamer) Bricasti M1(Tri function if one considers volume control).

Charles

It's definitely not "organic" or vinyl or tube like, it's real, warts and all. When did you ever come from a concert and say "Wow, that was really organic!",

I suppose that there is a vernacular issue with the use and meaning of terms. To describe an audio component as organic is in my opinion perhaps the highest compliment that could be paid in reference to it sound quality and presentation. It’s my way of expressing the sound is utterly natural and the antithesis of artificial and contrived.

So it seems the term may convey different meanings to different people, not an unusual occurrence. In the past seven or eight weeks I have attended 4 live performances  involving acoustic instruments. A classical piano and cello recital and 3 jazz shows in small venues.

Organic and utterly emotionally  engaging aptly describe  what I heard and “felt”.  I definitely want every audio product I have in my system to be “organic”. Again for me, the highest of compliments and praise.

Charles

“But please understand music can never sound organic, it’s a word that you have been accustomed and conditioned to, but it really doesn’t exist”

Completely disagree , however just as I suspected it’s a semantic or lexicon problem. My use of the term Organic is quite different from your interpretation, and that’s fine. To be absolutely clear, organic is synonymous with natural in my vocabulary. So by default it obviously exists.

organic for me does not imply some form of added warmth or coloration, to others who use this term it surely does imply this. As I mention in my earlier post, Organic is the highest of complements toward an electronic audio product. It represents natural purity, and “breath of life “ realism. The polar opposite of artificial, fake,electronic and mechanical. This lofty goal is difficult to achieve.

So again it is obvious (And understood) organic means different things to different people. I just wanted to clarify my use and interpretation of the term.

Charles

@melm

We are left then with: it makes the music sound more like unamplified instruments in real space, or not. For the most part this limits the music to classical, most often performed without the benefit of microphones and loudspeakers. I was intrigued by your post suggesting jazz shows like that. Did I get that right? If so, kudos to them and to you.

Yes, un-amplified jazz venue. No use of microphones needed for the relatively modest audience space. I heard tenor and baritone saxophones, trumpet, piano, stand up acoustic bass, drum kit.and jazz guitar. A fabulous feast for the ears. You can’t get more natural than this type of setting. The epitome of organic. 😊

Charles

@melm 

True, I could substitute the word natural. But literally all words have corresponding synonyms. Hugh -large. tiny-minuscule, wealthy-rich and so on. 
Charles

@sns 

You illustrate my earlier point in that it is predominately a semantics issue. There is not to my knowledge a precise and strict vocabulary in High End audio. So this leads to a communications problem when attempting to express oneself with written words (Particularly in back and forth forum discussions).

Sure, I could have typed natural rather than organic. Even then someone will take issue and say, "what do you mean by natural?"  Given the desire to describe our listening experiences which are emotion based, we all search for words and terms to convey what we mean. Another example is the popular term "neutral" . Okay neutral relative to what reference or standard? 

All we can do is to try our best to communicate as best we are able to via written text. Describing what one hears listening to audio components reproduce music is not particularly easy to do. We all try our best.

Charles

@sns

I have owned my Coincident Statement Line stage (CSLS) for 13 wonderful years. I’ve been asked on numerous occasions to describe its essential sonic character. The terms I employ over and over again are pure, resolved, open, transparent, dynamic and organic/natural. As a fellow CSLS owner would you change any of these?

Charles

@sns One other term I’d add for CSLS and DHT, SET amps in general. From the first moment I heard an SET amp IMMEDIATE was the one word that came to mind, and one I’d not used prior. DHT have unique sensation of transporting performers to you in a way I’ve not heard with any push pull or SS amps and pre’s. I think this is combination of sound staging and extreme transparency of these most elemental circuits, straight wire concept at work here, not much between you and signal

Absolutely 100% agree, this mirrors my amplifier progression. Transistor-tube push pull-DHT SET (Most pure sounding). If the Musetec 005 is cut from the same cloth, it is quite an accomplishment and a special DAC.

Charles

@sns 

The 005 is wired with silver? Very interesting.

Charles 

@melm

 I’d guess you’d call that attention to detail.

Yes, and in my experience it is this  type of attention that makes a difference for the better sonically. Those seemingly small details matter.

Charles

I’ve been doing some reading about the Musetec 005 and I am getting a very strong suspicion that the designer/builder may have actually listened to each part during the selection/rejection decision making stage.
1 Audionote Kaisei capacitors along with the Mundorf in the power supply.

2 Silicon carbide Schottky diodes.

3 Gold and silver foil capacitors in a discrete (No Op-amps) analog output stage.

4 As mentioned earlier, solid silver wire rather than cheaper thin copper traces to connect various boards.

5 Particular attention paid to clock implementation.

6 What seems to be an overbuilt power supply.

In my opinion these are not casual choices. Someone had to at some point do some comparative listening testing to choose these types of parts. This tells me that whom ever did the actual decision making seem to rely on listening to parts rather than solely a reliance on how they measured.

Perhaps  it is just me, but I find this very impressive. Who ever it is that did final part selection chose some really good quality pieces. It’s easier now for me to understand how this DAC fared so well up against the Bricasti M1 SE. Someone was serious about building a high quality DAC.

Charles

@melm

So it seemed logical that each part was listened to before a commitment to its inclusion and cost. That was confirmed recently in correspondence with the designer as I wrote in an earlier post

Well, he has my full respect for doing so. I can just imagine the amount of time and patience it takes to place those parts in a component and painstakingly listen and evaluate each individually. He could have easily decided to insert parts with superb specifications and certainly less cost and let it go at that. Genuine props to this guy. He must really love and appreciate music.

Charles

Hi @sns

I guess in this respect we see it a bit differently. Once you have taken the time to carefully listen and judge various parts, what is fussing over measurements going to yield post listening confirmation? The designer could have taken the popular/typical approach and just resorted to relying on Op-amps. He’d gotten pristine measurements.

I have no doubt that he uses measurements as an aid, some are fundamentally necessary and important, no doubt. But by a country mile I prefer his approach. Just sit there, use your ears and listen to what you hear.

I would not be at all surprised if during part comparisons during design development he had parts that measured better yet sound worse. I bet if he were asked, he would admit this to be true. That’s why presumably he puts such priority on listening. Bravo!!! If I misinterpreted  your point, my sincere apologies.

Charles

@melm 

👍

Thanks, just as I suspected.

Charles

@jjss49 

Your time and effort in conducting these  insightful DAC listening comparisons are very much appreciated by folks on this forum. 
Charles 

@sns I'd also like to hear far more from audio manufacturers on this front. If measurements don't count for much, state this clearly on sales and marketing front. 
 

Agreed

As I have said numerous times before, measurements are necessary and play an important role. In an overall hierarchy, I just believe that actual listening/hearing trumps test measurement. I would love for manufactures/designers to identify which measurements are most pertinent and relevant. I don’t believe all measurements are of equal weight.

which are the measurements that have at least some reasonable correlation with product sound quality? It would be legitimate progress to get that sorted out and publicly identified. IMHO Musetec 005 designer took the right approach.

Charles

and those who own unit, don't trust their sensory perception, thus, feel insecure in their purchase, I know at least one in this boat.

I find this sad. Someone has so feeble/fragile  a level of confidence in their own listening judgment that they defer to measurements even after actually hearing the audio product? Very sad indeed.

Charles

@jjss49 how’s that for an audiophile’s word salad??... 🤣

hope that helps

It is “very” helpful and insightful. I sincerely appreciate your impressions.

BTW, McIlroy is looking good as the leader thus far.
Charles

25pm

Someone I know was home demoing the Weiss. From what he described it seemed like a better Benchmark DAC3B. The 005 is not like the DAC3B.

I am looking forward to @jjss49 Weiss listening assessment . If it’s cut from that cloth of sonic presentation, for my taste I’d lean toward the 005. We’ll soon see.If I’m reading jj correctly the 005 seems a very good combination of tonal fullness/truth and high resolution.

Charles