Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC
I've heard the Leedh volume control extensively on Lumins and while it is probably the best non-preamplifier solution, it cannot compete with a reference pre-amp. I know they cost ridiculous money but there are reasons for it. |
@lordmelton and others using I2S rather than usb. I continue to be intrigued with I2S only because possible theoretical advantages vs usb, this being I2S being native protocol for dacs.
I've been searching for servers with I2S, virtually non-existent, motherboards don't have it natively, only diy solutions. One could do atx board build and use Pink Faun I2S HDMI board, bet that's very nice, but requires diy or custom build by another.
So most are limited to DDC/streamer conversion, usb still in chain from server to ddc/streamer, thus, not true pure I2S connection from server processor to dac. Also, streamers with I2S out very limited choices, since streamers critical to sound quality, limited availability may mean these streamers not be up to the best quality usb streamers with their much greater availability and variability. Also, no standardization of pin outs on I2S, so dip switches required for proper orientation, presume dip switches have some negative impact on sound quality. This possible downside could be alleviated with custom built I2S cable, so good there. The final possible downside is I2S clocking within dacs. Since its native protocol, perhaps no extra clocking needed, as used on good usb boards within dacs?
As some of you know, I had Singxer SU6, never tried, lack of motivation due to great usb sound quality, also considered some of the technical issues listed above, and others specific to my setup to be theoretical disadvantages vs usb.
So my issues with I2S in general, assuming there are in fact theoretical advantages for dacs with I2S inputs. One is no pure I2S available server to dac. Two, no standardization of !2S pin outs or connector type.
Seems to me dac manufacturers should state which input best, I suspect they put greatest engineering efforts towards usb because its input they use in voicing dacs, I2s if included, only for convenience. If they also voiced with I2S, they should state whether superior or not. On the server end of things, manufacturers should devise a method for I2S rendering if there is understanding I2S superior to usb or spdif. Pink Faun manufactures what is likely the best I2S streamer/renderer available, but this is expansion card for atx motherboard only, Baetis only off the shelf atx I'm aware of, otherwise custom build.
I don't understand why rendering has to be so secretive, complicated and as yet, objectively optimized. We need dac and server manufacturers working together in optimizing streaming chains, until then we have to guess or rely on the rare direct equalized comparison, difficult to do. I'd love to do an atx/Pink Faun I2S comp to my present usb, would be nice to know 005 preferred port.
|
I have the 005 for couple of weeks now and it sounds very good to me. I will say that at this price point, it surprised me and concur with what has been already said about this DAC. I am enjoying it as much. The way the USB sounds, I don't have much desire to move to I2S - my server side USB is very optimized with JCAT USB XE feed with some very exotic power supplies. I am currently trying out few USB cables though that I already have at hand (Network Acoustics, Westminster, Sablon) to see which one has better synergy with the server and 005 - they all sound fabulous in general. |
I have a Matrix Audio X-SPDIF2 DDC that I had bought a long while for the PS Audio DS DAC. Tried briefly to feed 005 with an Audioquest I2S hdmi and compare with the USB - needless to say it was a big step down. So just moving to I2S doesn't necessarily provides an automatic sound improvement even though I2S is a native interface to the DAC chip. So its only relative to what you are using which is USB in my case. However, the LKS DDC gets a high praise here. Its cheap enough to try one and I might get to it at some point if I am motivated enough but I will need to build another power supply which has to be equivalent or better than the one powering the JCAT USB. I think I might have hit the ceiling with 005 in terms of feeding it with clean and jitter free signal. The only way I can think of improving the sound quality further with 005 is by improving my diy server. I have few ideas which I will try over time but so far I am enjoying. |
I’ve written this before, but it’s worth repeating as Audiogon does not have a search within thread function. The Amanero board within the Musetec does the conversion from USB to I2S just like the external boards. It does that with an excellent power supply using super-capacitors, and clocks which probably outperform those on external DDCs. And without any cable carrying the I2S signals. Some here think that function can be better performed by an external DDC. Some think it cannot. |
@debjit_g Very interesting. Assuming you have atx board, why don't you try Pink Faun I2S board to compare with Jcat usb?
Having mentioned many times throughout this thread my curiosity and assumption atx board servers may be SOTA, perhaps I should mention I do in fact have relatively high end diy custom atx motherboard computer in house. I built this five or six years ago, relatively high level AMD processor, liquid cooling, gamer motherboard, high end graphics, improved motherboard audio all in giant case. This was real exercise in excess, built for the fun of it. I've thought about converting to music server only duty from time to time, but power supply mods ($2-5K), cards themselves (each one $400-2.5K) and time and effort to install hardware, optimize software, OS may not be worth it for build that started as general service computer. The AMD processor may be overkill, no dsp for me, and faster processors make more noise, liquid cooling inferior to passive air for audio duty because of noise and power supply demands, also, the motherboard isn't inherently best for music server duty. So, bottom line, I'd be able to try great rendering with Pink Faun and JCAT cards, but within context of less than SOTA atx build.
Hearing your less than satisfactory results using external DDC kind of confirms my presumption Singxer SU6 would be inferior to my usb setup. This was initially confirmed to some extent by observation of some modifying the SU6 with external power supplies, this despite having supercap PS which Alan at Vinshine claimed didn't benefit from lps. I also saw further mods to, can't recall if it was voltage regulator, caps? All this confirmed inherent issues with even higher grade DDC, they need to be top grade to optimize I2S.
@melm I totally agree with you, between the engineering of that board, and sound quality, both initially, and continuing, I should have absolutely no motivation to even try the I2S scheme. But then would I really be an audiophile if I wasn't at least curious! And this the reason for all my atx server curiosity.
I suppose all my streaming upgrade plans are based on wanting to hear full resolving capabilities of 005. This damn dac just wants to lead me down this path where everything feeding it needs to be SOTA. I've never had a source like this prior to 005, prior vinyl and digital source resolving limitations have been exposed for perhaps last ten years or so by the rest of my system or systems. |
I'm extremely leery about clocks after experience with the audiophile switch with OXCO clock, excessively precise sound staging and imaging, the very things clocks are supposed to improve. I assume my clocking is sufficient at the moment what with clocks in OpticalRendu and 005 usb board.
At this point, reducing noise is where my focus is, you'd think the better clock in audiophile switch I tried vs generic crap one in my router would have reduced jitter, resulting in better sound staging. My unique setup, no server rendering with server ethernet direct into streamer may have bearing on this.
I also have issue with external master clocks connected by cable. Ed Meitner of EMM fame claims its a joke, states all clocking should be done internally, closest to components, circuits it controls. IOW, all discrete clocking. I also understand the argument that a master clock ties everything together, still not sure how that works when you still have all these discrete clocks within the individual components.
I still see the Pink Faun, JCAT cards with atx boards as probable ultimate renderers. These board have great on board power supplies you connect to external lps, great clocks, optimized rendering with direct connection to dac, The best of these cards are likely superior to any external streamer at any price. .And with no need for separate streamers and attendant cabling, RFI rejection is theoretically superior.
The other great thing about an atx build is the versatility. You have choice of highest quality rendering via usb, I2S, spdif cards, and highest quality network porting via optimized ethernet or optical card. One can have it all in one single server. Between Pink Faun and JCAT you have two companies that understand streaming perhaps better than any other. |
if I (or anyone) want to try a Pink Faun, you need to try the one with ultra OCXO clocks, otherwise a Jcat is far better sounding at much lower price point. The ultra ocxo is also very expensive and at almost 1600 eur, cost half of what 005 does. The PF I2S is also limited in bandwidth I think (or at least when I looked at getting one couple of yrs back). I would probably get the PF USB if I get one at all but the key is whatever you get, you need to feed it with the best regulated power supply you can and sometimes they can cost more than what the card does. |
@debjit_g I believe you're talking about atx board power supplies when you mention cost of ps for pf or jcat boards, Certainly these are pricey, JCAT Optimo would likely be my choice at around $5300. But the lps for individual boards can vary greatly in price, can probably range from $100 to $1k or more for best. |
@sns I am talking about the power supply feeding the PF/Jcat usb/I2S card. The network card (I use Jcat net Xe as well) is equally important. The ATX power supply is a whole different ball game and that power supply is as much critical in the equation. My server is a 3 box solution and I have invested a lot across all these power supplies alone. I don’t want to deter too much with server discussions in this thread but from experience what I can tell is the quality of power supplies rules the digital world. |
I totally agree.
The only reason I go off on tangents with this thread is because of the great potential of 005. In the context of streaming, full potential of 005 requires totally optimized streaming chain. With dacs used for streaming I perceive dacs as only parts of a whole, analogous to amp/speaker integration. |
Yes, all USB boards, Amanero or XMOS or JLSounds does this as this is the only way to talk to the ESS. In other words, its a small DDC inside. What matters is the clocks, power supply feeding it and isolation. With an external DDC, you bypass the additional processing inside and go almost directly to ESS. The theory is this additional processing can put strain and induce noise/jitter on the chip. Even MSB has an external ProISL interface which converts USB to Optical. I strongly believe that DAC manufacturers should take all these into account when designing a DAC of great quality. Though USB was not meant for Audio interface, there is nothing wrong when designed right. |
In the Musetec, the ESS chips, together with its regulating clock, are on the analog board That board is powered by an elaborate LPS headed by the silver plated O-Ring transformer. That LPS powers nothing else in the DAC. The Amanero Board, together with its own 3 clocks are on a separate board. That board is powered by an entirely independent power supply at the head of which is a second transformer, a toroidal, feeding into a bank of super capacitors that act as batteries. That PS powers nothing on the analog board. This goes about as far to insulate the ESSs and their own clock from any strain, noise or jitter from the USB input circuit as I can imagine. Nevertheless, anything is possible in audio and there are rarely any hard and fast rules. So people are feeling the desire to experiment and we'll all be the better for their findings. |
@melm yes, I completely understand. I read through their website about it but honestly this type of architecture is nothing new - many many have implemented separating out the digital and analog completely over the years. Playback Design MPD8 has, if I am not mistaken, 6 independent psu powering different sections of the DAC. Designers have gone crazy. I find 005’s implementation, whatever that is, very thorough with excellent and careful choice of parts (which can only be done by listening) without going overboard and for a second I don’t feel that I need to use other interface (like I2S) to make it sound better which for other DACs I felt it needed. The more I hear the 005, the more I am impressed. Its pretty clear that this DAC is tuned by ear (and I can now see why ASR’s measurements turned out to be horrible, needless to say it being misleading). |
interim report on my experience with the 005 - i am not done with the overall dac comparisons but think i have a reasonable fix on the 005’s sound, strengths and weaknesses, and have one comparison completed i have spent the last week comparing it to a bricasti m1se (w mdx upgrade and lan input card) which i also bought to try, they arrived the same week ... took me a while to sort through which filter i like on the m1 (min phase 0) and then i started comparing to the 005 005 strengths (quite manifold) - detailed, transparent yet full sound, excellent rhythm n pace, jet black background, very nice tone/timbre, quite refined with no detectable grain in the treble or midrange, outstanding sibilance control, solid bass foundation and a dose of midrange/midbass ’fattening’ which i think is quite desirable 005 weaknesses (few and relatively minor) - a) onboard volume attenuation does degrade the sound noticeably (say to -20 db or more, small decrements are quite ok i think), so it is best used at full output, b) the unit, while having nice treble energy and resolution, sounds a little closed in on top (lacks a sense of ’air’ or openess), which affects the quality of its imaging, particularly perceived soundstage depth compared to the bricasti: 1) 005 full output volume is slightly higher than the m1 despite identical stated nominal voltage ratings, so i reduced 005 output -1 db to equilibrate - listened to both rca and xlr outs, sonic impressions are consistent - ran 005 using usb in, vs m1 via lan in (which is supposed to be its best input), then used usb in on m1 also, sonic impressions unchanged 2) two main areas where i preferred the bricasti - these are subtle but obvious and reproduceable on my system on different days so i trust them as solid findings -- the 005 presents the music more upfront, with a wide but not deep soundstage... voices/lead instruments are at the speaker plane or slightly forward, and there is a more closed in, closer-in quality to the sound, whereas the m1 portrays more at the speaker plane or slightly behind, but the soundstage extends significantly behind from there, significantly greater depth of stage with specific instruments and voices more layered longitudinally -- while tonally not different (comparable treble/mids/bass proportionality) the m1se has a greater sense of ease and fluidity and flow whereas the 005 has a slightly (emphasize slightly) more ’uptight’, robotic/digital nature vs the m1se having more of an ’analog’ or organic feel for the lack of an even better term, decay of notes and ’atmospherics’ are better on the m1 - i can only speculate why this is... perhaps because the bricasti does onboard upsampling like the chord stack and the 005 doesn’t into its ess converters... i dunno -- these two points are noticeable in direct comparison -- but listened to on its own, i would not say that the 005 seems closed in or robotic in the least... such is the benefit (or curse) of hearing a better piece of equipment in direct comparison on an otherwise quite resolving rig you can check out my system... i used the maggie 3.7i’s w fuse bypass and magna risers, driven by pass int150, also tried a well modded musical fidelity a308, then an oldie carver lightstar direct ref passive xlr linestage into a smc modded mccormack dna125 power amp - digital front end is roon run on an elberoth i7 core machine, uptone etherregen and aqvox switch, feeding sonore optical rendus as roon endpoints with usb out in summary (for now) i would say that the 005 is a really excellent dac, in the $2500-3000 price tier really really good, (i did not have the dena venus in tow anymore, but by memory i feel the 005 is more refined more organic, the venus was brighter iirc) -- the 005 comes within a sniff of stuff that is much much more expensive - the sound is superb: warm, full bodied yet nicely detailed, great speed and slam, built like a tank, and outperformed by the high dollar stuff in quite slight and subtle ways - as mentioned earlier it is best used in fixed output mode, with slow filter - it sounded more organic to me than the fast one |
Well the Bricasti is $10K, 11K with network card vs $3K for the 005. The Bricasti also has a built in preamp, how was that issue handled during the test? I don't believe it's possible to bypass the preamp or feed the 005 into the Bricasti preamp? I guess the main strength of the Bricasti is that it's dual mono but bear in mind it would be very interesting to run two 005s in dual mono for $6K. I will try this with my dealer's unit. |
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 |
@jjss49 Very nice comparison and interpretations!
While I don't have the experience of your comparison, I pretty much agree with your evaluation of 005. I certainly hear the relative forward sound stage, and that has always stayed consistent over many changes. The greatest depth increase was when I upgraded Coincident Statement linestage to MKII status and Amtrans dual selector switches. This is only upgrade that provided more depth, and that not dramatic increase, although easily noticeable. Based on my experience I'd believe depth could be improved on. Still don't recall, depth being any less vs Auralic Vega, LKS 004, Okto Dac8 which were all in house simultaneously.
I've never sensed a closed in sound to 005, but then I've not heard your particular comparison. Compared to same dacs above never noticed this. I can understand how relative lack of depth could be perceived as sounding closed in, although I hear fine sense of height in my system, very close to lifelike size images, voices generally at about 4' 6" H, this probably helps to provide a less closed in sound, I also use diffusers centered behind speakers so not too finely image outlines. I've found a large speaker like my Klipschorns help greatly in providing more life size images, Maggies do same. I'm also quite sure horns and the particular mods I've done to my Klipschorns (Volti mid horns and tweeters on dedicated baffle) are providing maximum openness.
I too agree that small increments of volume attenuation MAY not do harm to sound quality due to bit stripping. I constantly use 005 as fine volume control due to my Coincident having dual non remote volume selectors, not getting up and down constantly from listening chair for fine volume changes. The thing is I can never be sure on this front, generally our perceptions of sound change as volume changes, louder sounds better up to a point. I can only say splitting fine hairs here.
So, that leaves the other liability you heard vs Briscati, namely the slight digital signature of 005. This is the single aspect of 005 I've yet to come to final conclusion on. When first inserting 005 I found it pretty much dead neutral, over time and many incremental and more substantial upgrades I sometimes heard slight slides to analytical side. Finally came to end of nearly every single upgrade to system, so system static over perhaps last 75 hours or so, everything burned in and I'm adjusted to static state of system. So, over all these hours I've experienced far greater sense of analog sound previous to ANY digital I've heard previously (agree with slow filter vs fast). Still, I do hear a slightest hint of what may be digital signature coming through on certain recordings, audiophile recordings have great sense of organic, natural sound, its with the lesser recordings I hear this sense. I'd likely not notice this without comparisons provided by my present vinyl setup and aural memory of multi 100K vinyl setups, so slight but its there. The question I'm still answering is this signature due to dac or rest of streaming setup. Your comparison to Briscati forces me to assign more blame to 005 vs the streaming setup. Now, I will say, my long evolving and continuing streaming upgrades have been helping greatly in providing more analog like sound, especially adding the OpticalRendu vs SOTM SMS200Neo. LPS, best power cords on every steaming component, all going through power conditioner, FMC PRIOR to server, all these upgrades have helped greatly here. And more streaming upgrades on way, so presume even greater analog signature coming.
Still, the question remains, all things being equal, is 005 the last word in providing sense of analog like sound, the ease and sense of luxury of analog at it's best? Comparison to Briscati makes it seem not. Generally, its thought jitter responsible for the digital sound signature, it could also be something inherent to Sabre chip, or something else? I'd agree this signature very subtle with 005, almost a non-factor, even with the admittance it exists for me. As I stated previously, only hear this with lesser recordings, and still easy to hear past as the holistic system presentation is entirely life like, performers in room experience. It seems many criticize lesser recordings far more than I, my listening sessions four to six hours with no fatigue, only tiring for bed time. Overall, I'd continue to judge 005 as natural, high resolving dac, this extremely small deviation from optimum not a serious liability. I'd also say I'm not at an end with possible improvements here, more streaming upgrades on the way, I fully expect greater analog, less digital presentation in future. |
Forgot to add one point.
Ok, being mindful of the increased analog like presentation I'm getting via continual streaming upgrades. The difference between Briscati and 005 could be due to SOLELY due to streaming chain differences. I'd expect Briscati streaming chain optimized as streamer integrated, so presume maximum optimization and voicing as integrated unit. 005 subject to far greater stream chain variability, The results could be as much about differences in @jjss49 streaming chain vs. dacs as stand alone devices.
Keep in mind I also hear a slightly digital signature with 005, so it may be inherent to the unit. |
@jjss49 A minor comment. The bulk of my own listening is to classical music. I find the front to back depth to vary very considerably from recording to recording, and especially from label to label. Sometimes it appears quite true to life. I am, though, happy to accept your observation that there may be an even a greater distinction as one goes up the DAC ladder. |
@lordmelton Really not comparing $11k to $3k here. Briscati or any other streaming dac may have better price/performance ratio than perceived at first glance. For instance, I have around $6k in streaming exclusive components, brings my actual cost of 005 up to around $9k in apples to apples Briscati comparison. Add in analog volume control which may be superior to lesser preamp and/or preclude the need to purchase one, in which case the Briscati could be seen as a screaming deal. |
@sns @charles1dad @melm it has been fun trying this one out, the piece is a really lovely effort, and for the money, just wonderful performance, and it does let you run straight into a power amp, albeit with a very slight perceived grain at higher attenuation settings to some of the points made -- i agree that imaging (or the illusion of soundstage with depth etc) is very much a function of recording quality and mixing, no doubt some recordings have it in spades while others are lacking in this department -- also agree streaming chain is super important which is why i waited and got a second opticalrendu so i could run 005 vs m1 via identical super clean usb feed, 100% apples to apples... i find that with better dacs like these, the sonic differences are subtle, how they are fed can affect how they sound -- i can’t comment on image height per se... with my maggies and how they stand and full height ribbon tweeter, they do that very well, ’life-sized’ so to speak, if there is a difference in this specific aspect between the 005 and the m1, i could not hear it in my room -- one can really only speculate on what drives certain sonic characteristic being heard differentially between units, obviously the produced sound is a result of everything all together, impossible to isolate specific elements (dual mono d/a or analog stages, power supply design, upsampling rates, chip vs r2r ladder and so on... certain dacs of course allow for some features like filtering, os/nos, etc to be toggled in/out, but some don’t) -- m1 se does not have separate analog inputs, it is functionally like the 005 in it can adjust it own output level - but you cannot port a separate analog source into it/through it (as the msb can...) |
I still think the 005 is a fabulous bargain even considering that streaming and preamp are not built in. I had a decent preamp already in the chain as do many others so no extra expense there. Thanks to your comments and those of others, I learned of the benefits of streaming after I bought the 005. Still, spending less than $1000 for the streamer, cables, and optical "filter" probably has gotten me most of the way. I guess my system would fall short short of the best SOTA setups out there. But I would also guess I have gotten 80 to 90 percent there for a small fraction of the cost of the best. |
@jjss49 Hope I understand correctly volume control is analog based with Briscati, reason I mentioned possible replacement of preamp, of course, only for single source, that being streaming with Briscati.
@dbb 005 certainly has advantage in that initial expenditure much less, one can upgrade streaming as funds allow.
The important thing here is 005 place in dac hierarchy becoming clearer over time. I seems we are not in fact delusional, imagining sound quality that hits far above it's weight vs far more expensive dacs. Its enlightening to see these comparisons as they give us greater insight into areas of possible deficiency and/or excellence. However one determines it's price/performance value, a larger sampling of users discovering it is one nice dac. |
@sns Yes, I agree that if someone is looking for an all in one box solution then the Bricasti is an option together with the Aurender A20, Mark Levinson, Mola Mola etc. But we all know that having at least a separate preamp will sound better. The 005 responds very well to high end preamps, which you would think the opposite would be true because high end preamps will reveal all the warts in downstream equipment. I have auditioned the 005 with some of the best SS preamps in the World, including my own SMC-VRE-1 (out of production), Vitus Audio SL-103 ($30k) and Viola Sonata ($40k). I have also auditioned among others Constellation, Simaudio and Solution but found the above preferable. The 005 was never found lacking in any respect which is usually the case with a lower quality product. 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!", Never. Instead it will faithfully reproduce Jagger's Souf London accent and Karen Carpenter's Drawl. Plus razor sharp electric guitar and the greatest cymbal reproduction from ant DAC I've ever heard. Listen to Cream's Toad or some Hi-Rez Jazz. Getting back to the Bricasti, it's x8 oversampling which I believe will inhibit the use of HQ Player, which I understand to be the best CA program. Oversampling is not a purist audio feature either. Old school believes the original signal must remain so. Anyway many people will love the pseudo ML design and built by some ex ML employees, and of course it's American! |
"Screaming deal"? Perhaps so, but not so fast, please. Yes the Bricasti has a built in streamer and an analog volume control. But are these appropriate to the fine quality of the DAC function on the unit? In the first place I’ve searched far and wide and cannot find a review or evaluation of the streamer function itself on the Bricasti M1se. The "se" denotes the streamer edition. Then, searching far and wide in this and other forums I find a general consensus that built in streamers on expensive DACs generally are usually judged to be inadequate compared to separates. I am making no judgment on the Bricasti streamer function. But I wonder, really, whether it proves itself satisfactory to audiophiles who are into 5 figure DACs. And I wonder if it would be satisfactory to @sns particularly. Now, someone may read this and tell us that the included streamer outperforms the Aires G2. One never knows for sure. Then perhaps: screaming deal. Like most things in digital audio, streamers are developing at a rapid pace, even faster than DACs. I agree that the addition of a built-in streamer might help a DAC’s sales, even for some who would use it to get started but with plans to upgrade. On the other hand there are now some very good inexpensive streamers available to get started with. (My first streamer with the 004 was my stock Oppo 105, and it was actually pretty good.) And when you upgrade they can be sold. The Bricasti M1 MDx without the streamer is $10,000. The streamer adds $1000. IIUC the knob on the Bricasti M1 is not a volume control, but it is on the M1se. A remote with volume and balance is available for the Bricasti for a steep upcharge. I have only been able to price it in sterling at 549 VAT incl. But again, if you’re running a 5 figure DAC will that be satisfactory? As @lordmelton writes, a preamp does a lot more than control volume and select inputs. None of the several reviewers of the M1 or M1se that I read has written of using the built-in volume control for their review. I do not mean by any of this to detract from the exceptional sound quality of the Bricasti DAC as reported here, and I accept that as a given. What remains, for me is only the question of value for $$. That’s what brought many of us here in the first place. |
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 |
@lordmelton Totally agree on preamp front, I'd still use separate pre if I owned Briscati. Analog volume function on B would only be of value if one was lacking good quality pre.
@lordmelton @charles1dad I generally stay away from the word organic in describing sound quality, but understand it's meaning when others use it. I generally use natural or use 'performers in room' to convey this attribute. As for the 005 specifically, I find @lordmelton description to be entirely correct in that it does have extreme level of resolution, transparency that exposes all of a recording. For me it fits the definition of 'performers in room', which also fits my definition of natural or organic. Now, if organic is to fit Charles defintion it may not conform to that level of naturalness. That level of natural may require a bit more warmth than 005 has to give, both @jjss49 and myself, and it seems @lordmelton all agree the 005 pretty dead neutral, JJSS having heard a bit more of this nature with Briscati, my present conclusions, and L admittance in prior post. Yes, the 005 moves me emotionally and has this organic nature, just may not fully flush it out vs. some other dacs. No dac can be perfect, which means playing off set of compromises, 005 set of compromises is nearly perfect for me, may not for another. I fully expect someday I'll be replacing 005 with another dac, don't know when, but I'm quite certain dacs will continue to evolve towards both higher resolution and more natural timbre/organic/natural sound.
@melm You are correct, we cannot know the quality of the built in streamer in B, but overall sound vs 005 can be determined. The issue for fair comparison is quality of the streamer used with 005, with so many variations available hard to compare fairly to any dac with built in streamer. We must take at face value the PARTICULAR comparisons available to us and make subjective evaluation. And this is where I'd balance the comparison in 005's favor. With non streaming dac we can pick and choose from myriad streaming choices, we have greater ability to flavor our sound in various ways. With presumed streaming innovations ahead of us we have opportunity for even greater performance in future. No doubt greater versatility with 005 vs Briscati, or any discrete streamer dac vs steaming dac. |
Well, describing sound in words has always been difficult. Wise writers have given us some guidance from time to time. "Organic" and "musical" are too often used by audiophiles simply to mean, "it has a sound that I like." I have used "musical" at times, including in this thread, but I have given it a specific definition drawn from an old writing in UHF Magazine. I suspect that "organic" when it is not used simply to mean "I like it" may actually denote "yin" as popularized by the writings of Harry Pearson. But yin was regarded by HP as a coloration and not an asset. So too IMO expressions like it sounds more analogue, or more like tubes. 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. Around here that writing has been done best IMO by @dbb which is why his thread deserves a bump from time to time. |
One important aspect of having separates for streaming, volume, etc.. is that you can buy these units in the used market. For example, one of my 3 Sonore OpticalRendu’s is used and was a significant cost savings. I also never liked the volume on a DAC, especially at low volume. My Benchmark LA4 preamp at $2500 (new) serves me perfectly for source input switching and volume. I am under $7K for my Musetec 005 system (volume, streaming, DAC). There is no other streaming component I would want nor preamp, at ANY price, I want to switch too.
|
I first heard the word organic when Meridian launched their 500 series IIRC at the Earl's Court, London HIFI show in the late '80s. It was a truly beautiful if not cloured sound they produced. The first real assault on vinyl if you like. I was so enamoured I bought a CD player, can't remember which one. 506 maybe? Anyways since then I have associated organic with a coloured and unrealistic sound. The sound of tubes or old radios or receivers, if you like. These sounds may be very pleasing and even romantic but they are not accurate, that's why I prefer solid state. However you listen to what you prefer whether it's a syrupy Chet Baker or electronic music. 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. Maybe consider harmonious, everything playing in harmony, although if harmony exists the opposite must exist too which is found in the anti harmonic compositions of Zappa, Floyd and many classical composers. What I'm trying to say is that "organic" cannot reproduce anti harmonic compositions, that's why we should strive for neutrality and accuracy. The 005 is not perfect but for $3k it comes pretty darn close. |
“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” 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
|
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 |
Then as the Brits would say, the word "organic" is not fit for purpose. We need to agree on the meaning of words if we are to communicate. If "organic is synonymous with natural in [your] vocabulary," why not just say "natural."
|
With posters or reviewers I'm familiar with I generally understand the meaning of words used in describing sound qualities. I generally find organic and natural to be interchangeable, however, I do have issue with organic in that it can only be rightly applied to the human voice, otherwise humans are playing instruments that aren't organic.
Natural has it's own issues in what is natural supposed to sound like with amplified instruments and vocals. Recording, sound reinforcement equipment has inherent sound qualities, add our likely totally unique set of audio equipment and natural has virtually no means to test it's validity. Natural timbre, which I use quite often, has same issue.
I sort of like the term analog like, but that presumes others hear or have heard analog audio reproduction. Also, quality of the analog one has heard may greatly color their perceptions, if one had only heard lower level analog, may perceive it as a negative.
My favorite and most usual term is 'performers in room', for me this takes many individual terms/words into account, a system that reproduces the sense of artists/performers in room is highest goal of audio reproduction, IMO. |
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 |
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 |
Charles, I agree the exact words don't matter much, after this much time in audio, vast majority know what is meant.
As for CSLS, I wouldn't change a thing. My question is do these terms convey a color? Likely I see more requests for something called warmth when asking about component sound, makes me think many systems are colored, always trying to play one color against another. CSLS, and 005 for that matter don't play the color game, I've often stated 005 as sounding neutral, CSLS fits the bill as well. Neutral, organic, natural, they all convey a component not playing color game. Assemble a system from components with these properties, along with highly resolving, transparent, dynamic, and you'll hear live performers in room, illusion of real live flesh and blood in room. Ha, just occurred to me, I'm describing an ORGANIC presentation, perhaps using that word not so wrongheaded!
I'll also add, while these words are indeed semantics for a general audiophile audience, the more I examine the exact words in depth, and how they relate to how I hear sound, they can and do have different meanings. It can be really difficult to get across to others the exact experience of sound one feels when listening to their system, words can be so imprecise, and we can't always know other's interpretations of these words. |
Charles, 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. 005's extreme resolving abilities and micro dynamic performance really took things over the top! |
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 |
