Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

@sns 

The 005 is wired with silver? Very interesting.

Charles 

@charles1dad

It’s just the three set of jumpers from board to board that are wired with short discrete silver wires. This is in place of the standard thin gauge ganged copper jumper connections. The O-Ring transformer powering the analog board is wound with silver plated OCC wire. I’d guess you’d call that attention to detail.

@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 imagine if the 005 came with both silver and copper jumpers, the users could fine tune the overall sound of their system. 🎶 Excellent thread.

Wig

I do like combo of silver and copper throughout system, about 50/50 at present. As system has progressed over the years increasing amount of  silver added. My 300B monoblocks use vast majority silver wire, including output transformers. I've found silver has both greater refinement and extension on top, copper added for fuller mids and bass, silver also helps with articulation in bass.  Silver plated copper also very nice in certain places.

I recall a time when I couldn't stand virtually any silver in previous systems, always added unwanted brightness in highs, thin mids and bass. How times change!

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

@charles1dad

This is almost exactly why I chose to buy the Musetec, sight unseen (and unheard) at the time. In the first place I believe that great parts make great sound, and the designer had proved his product to a cost with the 004. When I looked at the cost of the parts in the Musetec I simply said to myself that no one would increase the cost of the DAC so much unless each expenditure added to the SQ result. It was hard to find, but the 2 Mundorf gold and silver foil capacitors costs about $95 each. The gold plated O-ring transformer costs about $200. (See a similar one at Kitsune.) A typical torroid of a similar size is less than $25. I saw each of the new femtoclocks selling for $122. A Crystek is about $25. And so on.

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.

One of the things I have come to admire about this maker, and about many other Chinese manufacturers is their complete openness about exactly what’s inside their DAC. Compare that with the mystery that surrounds the interior of DACs from European and American makers. Long on promotional literature, but short on specifics.

@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

The only thing that gave me pause was Musetec reaction to poor ASR measurements, recall them stating Amir's measuring equipment superior to what they used in designing 005.

While I'm on board with listening as being superior to limited measurements in voicing components, it would be nice to know Musetec had superior measurement equipment in their lab. The question is; could the 005 have been even better had better measuring equipment been available?

Realize playing devil's advocate here, 005 is wonderful, not sure I'd change a thing. 

It certainly would be nice to actually hear audio products as they go through voicing phase by manufacturers, This would give us much better idea of how measurements correlate with various sound qualities.

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

@charles1dad

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.

Well, no surprise. In my "summary" of the issue I wrote, "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."

@melm 

👍

Thanks, just as I suspected.

Charles

@charles1dad I'm only posing this as interested spectator in observing designers as they voice audio components. Presumption is measurements and listening go hand in hand, design of circuits using individual component values in order to attain particular desired goals, these goals being specific measured values from that particular circuit. At this point designer places circuit into component and listens, depending on outcome of listening test, circuit modified via replacement of previous components and/or their values, or leave circuit as is. Point is, both measurements and listening go into final design.

What I'm interested in is, circuits designed to certain measured parameters, Would not more precise instrumentation possibly provide the means to uncover some  anomaly hiding below threshold of previous inferior instrumentation? Assuming it could,  it follows removing that anomaly would change sound quality.

Perhaps 005 could have measured better on bench AND maintained high quality sound with better instrumentation. I can't know if Musetec's own measurements when designing 005 left some anomaly uncovered or they intentionally designed with the knowledge it would measure exactly as it did for ASR.  If I were audio designer I'd like my equipment to both sound and measure well. Just on marketing and sales front, assuming one's product will be measured at some point, it would be good to cover oneself on measurements.

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. Otherwise many will assume manufacturer has been exposed and had something to hide. I've seen this very thing with 005, many will never take this dac seriously after ASR review. Many rate both specs and listening as important in making purchasing decisions.

@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

hope to report on this in a few days... same dac chips inside both right?

the weiss has been out a few years already, so probably earlier version of the sabre top converter i would guess (i am sure you guys will correct me if needed ... 😆)

@jjss49 - Just curious what power supply you are using with the ifi streamer?

All - The more I use the 005 the more I like it. Around 4 hundred hours on it now. It mates up wonderfully with the Linn Klimax preamp & B&W 802D speakers. 

@jjss49 

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

@jjss49 Your insights very much appreciated. I believe the 501 uses the 9038, 502 as well.

As you all know, I love the sound of 005, absolutely no complaints, I believe Musetec voiced it to best of their ability.  We can't know how it would sound with different measurements, so we trust Musetec and our own sensory perceptions, and in the end that's all that matters. Lesser measurements of unit are only issue for Musetec sales, reputation, those who rely solely on measurements for purchases or estimations of quality, 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.

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 - Just curious what power supply you are using with the ifi streamer?

i’ve tried several upgrade ps’s for zenstream -- which i feel is essential to get it to sound as good as they say it does

[btw - the zs is not being used in my recent comparisons involving the 005.. i have the zs as an extra roon endpoint for when i want to listen to an older dacs w/oa usb in... i.e., my trusty musical fidelity trivista 21, or van alstine tube dac)]

the ifi one-step-up filtered upgrade ps works well (it actually used to be bundled with the zs when they first introduced it, but then they deleted it, swapping in a lame-o bottom of barrel swps, no doubt for cost savings) ... as does my 12v chi-fi teradak lps... but right now i am using a nicer sotm 3 rail or keces p3 2 rail ps, set on 9 volt

a nice thing about the z-s is that it can take a wide range of dc voltage inputs, anywhere from 7-12 vdc iirc

All - The more I use the 005 the more I like it. Around 4 hundred hours on it now. It mates up wonderfully with the Linn Klimax preamp & B&W 802D speakers.

yes i think i agree, the 005 brings a dose of warmth and lower mid body to the party, which the b&w can use... and the 005 treble is extended but refined, should keep those b&w metal dome tweets happy

@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

@charles1dad

morning to you... up early to see if rory can get his holy grail at st andrews today!!

to reply to your query, unfortunately my ank 4.1 was gone before the 005 arrived so i cannot definitively report the sonic differences from direct trial/comparison

i had my 4.1 for about 18 mos, enjoyed it immensely, it surpassed so many well regarded sub-$5000 dacs i tried over that time (audio mirror, denafrips, sonnet/metrum, schiit and so on), but over time i found i preferred a (well done) variable output dac to run straight into power amps (i barely ever listen to records anymore as my digital front end has improved), the 4.1 sounded really wonderful but as you know, it is a giant square box tall wide and deep, and i could not use upsampling as the inputs are limited to 24-96

that said, my notes on the 4.1 sonically are as follows

- rich saturated sound, very clear treble (not in the least rolled off as one might expect from a tube output dac) - i suspect one can play with this by tube rolling the 5687 output stage tubes, but mine came with excellent old stock tungsols which i did not fool with, i know from my earlier experience with dan wright’s tube gear that they are tip-top examples of that tube type

- luscious well embodied midrange with a wonderful dimensionality that great tube gear brings, very pure tone/timbre - solo piano on that thing was sooo lovely, effortless detail with weight and body, very realistic attack and decay

- bass was pretty tight pretty fast but did not plumb lowest register quite as well as the best, at the same time, there was great air and natural reverb to bass notes (think audio research reference series tube amp bass, versus pass labs solid state bass)

- the unit imaged very well, but not quite as well as the best of what i am enjoying now (chord stack, msb), i must say i have (reluctantly) become a believer in well implemented upsampling and filtering in dacs, in my experience it really restores (or embodies) the music with spatial cues, and clean resolution of more complex passages...

from memory (always a little suspect) i would venture to say that the 005 vs 4.1 -- about same in the treble (both top notch, transparent without any digititis), 005 bass more solid/deep but less tuneful, 4.1 midrange tone and body somewhat more ’magical’, soundstaging/ambient retrieval 4.1 somewhat better - how’s that for an audiophile’s word salad??... 🤣

hope that helps

@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

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.

The Musetec 005 sounds more like this one.

Resonessence Labs Mirus DAC | Wall of Sound | Audio and Music Reviews

A shame these guys are no more. They are the guys who previously designed the ESS chip.

I owned the Resonessence Labs Mirus Dac prior to the 005. It was the first Dac that I heard that sounded like good vinyl. As good as the Resonessence Labs was, the Musetec has better separation of images and increased resolution. I am very pleased with the sound quality of the 005. Like some other owners of the 005 I am using the Sonictransporter i9 Optical with the Sonore OpticalRendu. These components are simpatico. Low noise floor and excellent balance of the frequencies. This is through Altec A7 speakers which are ruthlessly revealing. I would like to thank the OP for making me aware of the 005.

@jjss49 - Thanks for the response in regard to PS for the ifi streamer. I've been pleased with the upgrade to SQ when switching from the stock PS as well. Currently using a Nuprime 12V LPS. 

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

I am without my Musetec 005 for the past few weeks and likely for a few more weeks. I lent it out to someone.

I ran into some really messed up streaming issues on ROON the past week with my Benchmark DAC3B. I was getting some smearing of the sound. This was with TIDAL, Qobuz, and my FLAC library. Anyways, I solved it by enabling the following on ROON (all other DSP is removed)

• - Headroom Management
• - Sample Rate Conversion

I am not sure if I needed both but the sound is correct now so that is good enough for me.

Did anyone need to do this with the Musetec or notice any degradation of the ROON streaming? There are new versions of ROON that I automatically install, so I am wondering if that was the culprit.

I also removed my Sonore OpticalModule from the streaming chain thinking that was the culprit. I now think it was not at fault and need to put it back in. Current streaming is fibre optical direct from a network switch to my OpricalRendu.

I also have some suspicion on Qobuz. I have signed out of that service for now and need to test further.

Roon can be strange at times, especially with complex network. I had issue some weeks ago after a Roon upgrade, library looked normal, would start streams from both Tidal, Qobuz, and rips on NAS in normal manner, but then go though all tracks within seconds, no sound output. I couldn't locate to any one thing, just did reboots on everything, problem solved.  Reboots always go to solution for streaming or network issues IME.

Can't recall my exact settings with Roon, but I disable everything possible, less processing equals better sound quality.

@rrboogie 

Thanks for the post.  What has kept it going are messages of satisfaction like your own.

The famous ROON fly by on the tunes was something that has happened to me a few times, Usually, when I was setting up a new install. I forgot the reasons why it happened in the past.

BTW - I went to the Sonore web site to check out a new LPS for my OpticalModule (old one runs too hot). I noticed that the OpticalRendu is now DSCOUNTINUED.

Sonore - Home

@yyzsantabarbara Hmm, wonder if due to inability to acquire chips or coming out with new iteration of same function?  Doubt it was due to lack of sales, see many in use. I'll contact Andrew and see what's up. Still waiting on my OpticalModule, hope order doesn't get cancelled.

@yyzsantabarbara - Roon has been running well for me with the 005. Took a bit to get it set up with the ifi streamer via USB to the 005, but it's been stable & sounding good since then. 

Thanks for the ROON feedback. My issue could be related to the Benchmark DAC3B and the "inter-sample overs" thing they support. The thought of that was what made try to adjust the ROON headroom management in the first place. Though last month everything was working fine on the DAC3B without the adjustment.

When I get my Musetec 005 back, I may have to use a second OpticalRendu dedicated just to the 005. The other option would be to use the single OpticalRendu, and just switch the USB between DACs (easy for me to do). I would need to create a new ROON DSP filter that does nothing and name it "Musetec" and the existing one "Benchmark". That is a pain because one tends to forget to change the filter to the correct setting.

I went crazy into these ROON settings last year with 3 DACs and 2 DSP Convolution filters all setup at the same time. It got complicated.

@yyzsantabarbara  So I spoke with Andrew at SGC, states they continually receive promises of parts delivery, never delivered, so in process of redesigning OR and OM, who knows when these become available again. These supply chain issues are crazy these days! Think I'm going to go ahead and order Network Acoustics Muon ethernet filter in coming days, at least I can continue to experiment in front of server. I'll have to continue using generic FMC with OR post server.

As for Roon I prefer absolutely no dsp of any kind, no volume leveling, no track analysis, all Roon functions kept at absolute minimum sounds best in my setup.  I've thought about experimenting with HQPlayer, it gets far higher marks than Roon for dsp.

@sns I wrrote a blurb last night identifying my Benchmark DAC3B as the cause of my streaming gremlins. After a few hours of listening and unplugging and plugging in devices I came to the conclusion that my Benchmark DAC3B is working perfectly. It a very robust unit and I was surprised I initially though it was broken. I deleted the post above.

I was also praising the addition of the OpticalModule in front of the OpticalRendu. When it was working it was rgeat. It really improved the streaming sonics. I had been going direct from my network switch since I was suspicious about the OpticalModule’s health te past few weeks. It is likely on it’s last legs since it failed after a few hours. It may work again this morning.

I replaced the OpticalModule with a EtherRegen that was idle in my now dismantled Livingroom system. Again, more sonic improvement in the streaming. The sonic picture is cleaner and more clear. I think the EtherRegen sounded even better than the OpticalModule, but my OM is defective.

I was never impressed using the ER from A > B (standard way). I am doing B > A and it is a better use of the ER. I was planning on selling the ER last year, but I tried B > A before putting it for sale and the ER in front of the OpticalRendu was a winner. I am also using the cheap power supply that came with the ER.

Let’s us know how the Muon works out. At this time the plan for me is to get another ER once my Livingroom system is rebuilt.

I removed the DSP from all my ROON endpoints again. Seems perfect so far.

I want to use both the XLR out to my dual subwoofers and the RCA out to my preamp. Is there any reason that I should not do this? I have read that some Dacs do not recommend running both simultaneously.

Also, should I put the 005 in Standby when not in use?

I have been trying different preamp combinations to find a synergy with my system. The Schiit Freya + has sounded excellent. Low noise floor and different presentations between Solid State and Tube Buffer. I also have tried the Topping PRE90 which has a lower noise floor and punchier mid bass but vocals had a slight glare. I added a Jolida SSX Soundstage Expander (tube buffer) in front of the Topping PRE90 and it added weight, harmonics, width and depth to the soundstage which I prefer to the PRE90 by itself.

I am also trying different USB cables from the OpticalRendu to the 005. The Audioquest Diamond has a little more detail than the Acoustic BBQ USB cable. I am going to try the Sablon 2020 and FTA Callisto. Any other recommendations for USB cables would be appreciated.

@rrboogie I'm biased in that I believe the preamp should be considered as  package with sources, ie. as important as the source itself. 005 potential such that it could benefit from cost no object pre's, I've used 005 straight thru, no pre, with Musical Fidelity M2si integrated, Schitt Saga + and my usual Coincident Statement. Each has pretty large impact on sound, Statement easily surpasses the others. I did prefer tube buffer with Saga +, my go to preference would likely always be tube pre with 005, what with it's neutral to slightly analytical inherent nature.  And my take is spend at least as much on pre as 005 itself, will pay off handsomely.

On usb cable front, tried many prior to AQ Diamond, after, figured why bother, high resolving, transparent, nice tonal qualities, whats not to like! If you have problems, its not the Diamond.

Leave in standby, no sense in putting hours on components with limited life spans.

I have no idea about running XLS and rca outs together, I did try using both outs on prior Auralic Vega, resulted in diminished  sound quality. Makes sense that even if possible, could result in diminished sound quality, analog output stage doing more work.

@rrboogie
Not a good idea to use one set of interconnects from DAC to sub-woofer and another to preamp. One set to preamp and two sets out from preamp to amp and sub-woofer, even if you have to use Y-splitters. That way your preamp volume control will control all. Otherwise a mess with control of volume.

I have used three different preamps with my 004 and 005. The Freya+ was my middle pre and is very good for the price. The emphasis is on: for the price. I used it with NOS Chrome Domes. Having tubes somewhere in the system when you are running a solid stage DAC (which is to say, most of them) is great. The Freya+ easily beat out a very good SS preamp. I found, though, that I couldn’t live without a balance control and for this and other reasons went to a much more expensive tubed preamp. It’s all much, much better. The moral of this story is that to hear it at its best you cannot match the Musetec with components appropriate to only a $3000 DAC. In this I agree with @sns . In your place I might consider selling all your pre- stuff and getting something better. But I’m not there and have not heard it all as you have.

As for USB cables. They really do matter and IMO are very system specific. I say first settle on your preamp. AQ Diamond works for a lot of people including @sns. It did not work for me as I wrote earlier. Nor did a custom silver core cable that did fine with the 004. AQ Pearl at 5% of the Diamond price works better here. But it did lose a bit of sparkle/openness that should be there. A change in the interconnect between DAC and preamp is proving just right along with the Pearl. I’ll write about that cable in a bit. So my advice: try interconnect and USB cable. Buy cheap or buy where you can return.

@melm 

The moral of this story is that to hear it at its best you cannot match the Musetec with components appropriate to only a $3000 DAC. In this I agree with @sns . In your place I might consider selling all your pre- stuff and getting something better. But I’m not there and have not heard it all as you have.

This advice from you and @sns rings true. I believe that if you want to exploit all that a high quality DAC has to offer, you need a top flight quality line stage. I do not believe you can dance around this point. No doubt the Freya , Saga and Topping represent “good value “ and are less expensive. I just don’t feel that you will utilize the full sonic potential using them in place of higher  tier line stage options.

Charles

I have had the Freya+, Pre90, Coda 07x and Benchmark LA4. My fav is the LA4 though the 07x has dual XLR outputs and I use one of those to my sub. The CODA preamp sounded the best with the sub. It maybe a gain thing with XLR.

The pre90 does not work well with all amps but when it does, such as with a Benchmark AHB2 or Parasound A21+, it is not a value unit. It is an excellent unit.

I though the Freya+ was good for the money.

I use the 07x and the LA4 with the Musetec 005 and both are exceptional (but different). The 07x is great with my sub.

We tested dozens of USB cables with the opticalRendu (and the entire Sonore Rendu series).  We really liked the IN-AKUSTIK Reference USB 2.0 cable.  That is why it is the only USB cable we carry.  Of course, when we are down to swapping out high end USB cables, it's about personal preference.  Just our two cents for what it's worth.  

@sns  Thanks for your recommendation for the Coincident Staement Line Stage. It is one that is on my shortlist. I am going to take my Freya+ to a friends place who has a Supratek Cabernet which is also on my list.

@melm yes, I agree that USB cables matter. I can easily hear the differences in them. I have a Sablon 2020 on the way to compare to the Audioquest Diamond and Acoustic BBQ

@yyzsantabarbara  One of my main criteria in a preamp is the noise floor as My Altec A7 speakers are over 100db efficient. The PRE has the lowest noise floor that I have used so far. Incredible actually. Better than the Freya+  in all modes, better than Modwright LS 36.5 which I had prior to the Freya + The Benchmark LA4 is on my shortlist as well. What are the differences to the PRE 90 and LA4 to your ears?

@small-green-computer Thank you for your recommendation. I'll take it into consideration and thanks for the great products and services over the years!

The difference between the pe90 and LA4 are not that great when the pre90 works as intended. The following reviewer put them head-to-head.

Topping Pre90 + Ext90 Review - Pre-amp my Power-amp! (soundnews.net)

For me, I hated the fact that the pre90 worked well with only 2 of the amps I tried and was unusable for me with 4 or 5 others. It was a volume issue. The LA4 works with any amp and there are more needed features and robustness to the implementation and feel. I really wanted to like the pre90, but it failed. 

If you like a bit of warmth, I highly recommend the CODA 07x. It is not as quiet as the pre90 or LA4 but not that far off. It has a tube-like sound that would appeal to more people. I gravitate more towards the LA4.

The Musetec 005 with the 07x works well but if your amp is warm and the speakers are warm then it maybe too much of a good thing. In such a situation I would change out one of the components to tone that warmth down. 

I say this because the 005 was the only SS DAC that worked with my RAAL SR1a headphones when used with a 2-channel amp. It was also the best DAC by a mile for such a use case. The SR1a is extremely revealing and a bit bright. In comparison, my Benchmark DAC3B was a no go with the SR1a and 2-channel amp, too bright.

I experimented with the Topping Pre90. I found volume problems when I used it with my McIntosh 152 preamp using the higher voltage balanced inputs. The loudness problem was solved when I switched to the lower voltage RCA inputs. Ultimately I preferred my Hegel preamp. The Topping sounded too thin with many recordings. The pre90’s transparency was impressive, but after much listening I preferred the texture provided by the Hegel.  I only used it with two McIntosh power amps (MC152 and MC402) and got the same results with both.

@rrboogie @sns Thanks for your recommendation for the Coincident Staement Line Stage. It is one that is on my shortlist

@sns is correct with regard to the Coincident Statement line stage. It is in my opinion a truly superb sounding component. One of the most genuinely natural sounding audio components I’ve heard. I hope that you find an opportunity to hear it for yourself.

Charles

@rrboogie
Just a reminder about the USB in the Musetec, in that it doesn’t use the 5 volts from the USB cable. I mention this because most of the Sablon 2020 USB cables shown have a double cable configuration keeping the 5 volt, line one, wire separate from the digital lines. When used with the Musetec nothing flows through line one making the second cable unnecessary.

I have the Sablon 2020 non powered USB on the way. Currently, the Acoustic BBQ non powered is my preferred cable over the Audioquest Diamond. The Diamond is a bit tipped up in the treble.in my system. I also have a Supra Excalibur on the way for the sake of comparison. I have the Supra Cat 8 + ethernet feeding my Sonictransporter i9 and also the Bluseound Node 2i/ EtherRegen before that. I'll let you know my experience once I have time with all of the cables.