It never shocks, surprises, or disturbs me when someone, or some group, finds a less expensive DAC to sound better to them than a more expensive one. Indeed, within this long thread there have been many testimonies of the Musetec bringing greater pleasure than more expensive competitors. Personal taste, set-up, selection of tracks, kind of music, short-term vs. long term listening, comparisons to components rather than to live music, etc., may all contribute to a result that may vary from our own. I wrote about this before, about a year ago, "No one here has ever said that the Musetec is the best of all DACs. Like any DAC it may not be for everyone. . . . . If someone says he likes another, perhaps even less expensive, DAC better than the Musetec let's just accept that and move on."
Nonetheless, what was written here has a very unsavory ring to it. The writing, and particularly its placement, virtually self-denies it the credibility the poster was looking for. I say that for two reasons. First, I find it absolutely suspicious that the post was made to this thread. A more reasonable thing to do, I would think, would have been to start a new thread with a comparison of four well though of DACs rather than aim it at a thread dealing with one of the so-called losers. Others on Audiogon have done similar things. A second more reasonable place for it might be the existing Giscard r26 DAC thread here. Seems to me if I had a comparison to share and the Musetec came out on top, I would post it here rather than to the discussion of the DAC that came in second place. That is, unless I had a malicious motive.
The second reason I think the post to this thread is unsavory is that the poster took great pains to single out the Musetec for gratuitous extraneous criticisms. He did not criticize any of the other DACs in a similar way. What he wrote was (1) "Seems like a dated design," (2) a throwback design in not just aesthetics but also sonics" and (3) "the least aesthetically appealing of all 4 DACs."
About the Musetc being a dated design. The poster obviously doesn't know that R2R (used in the Giscard) is the oldest of the digital to analog technologies. it was used in Philips CD players more than 40 years ago at the outset of the digital age. So talk of a dated design is just kind of ignorant. And obviously there is nothing wrong with a "dated" design if it offers high sound quality. The Musetec used the newest sigma-delta chip available at its birth, a fine analog section (that doesn't date at all), and a newly developed super-capacitor power supply for its digital section. It also uses a relatively newly developed O-Ring silver plated transformer as well as newly refined clock-crystals. Much of its architecture is fairly standard and used in some of the finest DACs of the day.
Because he has obviously has a limited understanding of what goes on inside a DAC, the poster next chooses to demean the Musetec's aesthetics. The fellow simply doesn't like how the Musetec looks. Well, I think it looks fine. Being a design meant for relatively limited distribution it is a simple, even elegant, design compared to some mass produced components. It has functional buttons and a window giving all the information needed and it comes with a full-functioned remote. It's entirely of extruded aluminum with no sheet metal at all. It's as solid as a brick.
So he came HERE specifically to trash the Musetec. I do not know why. But no one controls these threads and he may do on Audiogon as he pleases. However for the reasons given here, the post in question should be accorded a very low credibility rating.
