up to now, based on all comparisons made on very high level systems (1.5-2 million dollars), the only "low cost" DAC that musically produces comparable results with DACs that cost 10 times more is the MUSETEC MH- DA005.
those who can afford it can compare it with the NAGRA HD DAC X, with the dCS Vivaldi APEX DAC or with the Gryphon Audio Kalliope. then we will resend for the ratings.
p.s .: the MUSETECH used for the subjective evaluation tests was included in a 100% Gryphon Audio chain as follows: Amplifier 2xApex Mono + Preamplifier Commander + Kodo loudspeaker
|
| I didn't talk about brands that produce serious DACs, which in fact are not reviewed by poor Amir, just in order not to generalize about Chinese production.
False - he has reviewed DACs from Mola Mola, Holo Audio, Chord...
| Measurements are based exclusively on a few and insufficient parameters able to describe the physical phenomenon.
For DACs, these measurements describe whether the digital signal is correctly converted into the analog waveform that it represents.
| The ONLY low cost DAC that musically produces comparable results with DACs that cost 10 times more is the Musetec MH-DA005.
OK - you win. Enjoy the piece.
|
@batvac2
I wonder how you can hold to your position when we consider your excellent integrated tube amplifier, the Ars Sonum. I have searched the 'net and can find no review of the Ars Sonum that provides detailed measurements of it. The maker provides very little by way of specs. So how is it possible to like it?
I suggest you do yourself a favor and send it to Amir for testing. Yes he tests some expensive components. He didn't like the Chord DAVE at all, yet it is a reference for some. I'm certain he'd be happy to oblige if you send him your Ars Sonum, for that's how he gets almost all of the units he tests.* The problem is that we all know that it would come out far behind the Topping LA90 integrated amp that he tested recently. The harmonic distortion specification of your Ars Sonum is about 4000 times greater than that measured in the Topping. The Topping SINAD is 30db better than the Ars Sonum s/n.** Amir concluded that the $900 Topping amp engineers "have outdone every amplifier I have measured . . . getting ahead to capture the #1 position with a large gap to #2 choice."
So for US$900 you can have it all, with a bit more power as well. Why would you continue to listen to all that noise and distortion from the Ars Sonum when the Topping is only $900 away? The answer probably is because you know that the Ars Sonum integrated tube amplifier in all likelihood sounds better than the Topping. And how it sounds is the only thing that really matters. Bottom line: isn't that where it's really at?
*Topping units, though, are all sent by the manufacturer. An ASR review is a evidently a major part of their marketing plan. The suggestion, therefore, that they are designed with Amir's testing in mind is not exactly off the wall.
**I concede these are not precise equivalents, but they are close enough.
|
@batvac2
I am happy with your answers, it is just what I expect from the followers of poor amir.
it is easy for me to be able to reiterate the gaps that your reasoning presents, let's start.
We know that the poor amir, in his own right, reviews DAC: the new products come from Chinese low cost (Topping in the front row), the remaining products (with costs much higher than low cost) are provided by the readers of the forum and no one can guarantee on their actual goodness.
This first aspect already casts doubt on the goodness of comparisons.
as for the measures you say that they describe the goodness of conversion from digital to analog, I wonder are you just ignorant or are you a gullible?
without using complicated metaphors, it is as if, based on the technical data of a car, you could establish how it behaves on the road without ever trying it.
going back to the origin, if you don't have a MUSETEC what are you doing here?
are you jealous by chance?
Would you like someone here to say that the filth that Topping produces is better?
know that it will never happen, not because we are followers of MUSETEC, but because it actually sounds GREAT!
|
You are taking me away from listening to music - I will respond to you but not americanspirit as he/she makes no logical sense. I have listened to enough gear to know that I like sources and speakers that are "straight up" but amplifiers that add a little cream to the coffee - either big class A or tubes.
You're right - there were no measurements of the Ars when I purchased it - I relied on the speaker designer himself using this amp to voice the speakers and present them at shows. I am fairly confident that in my nearfield setup, moderately sized room, and easy load speakers, this 30W amp pushes out the requite 5-10 watts needed for 75-85 db listening with low distortion and a little room left over for dynamics. I recently brought home a lovely sold state Luxman integrated for comparison and got to experience all I am missing and gaining from this tube amp.
IF measurements showed this amp to have an obvious engineering flaw - frequency modulations, gross distortion at moderate power, excessive power supply noise - then I would be pissed. It bothers me that expensive gear may come with "scratches and dents." A $10,000 amp recently measured in Stereophile had a 2 db channel imbalance and other measured anomalies that were linked to a cold solder joint.
Can audio components be designed entirely by ear- exchanging capacitors in the circuit based on the sustain of a piano in one recording or the input jacks based on one singer's voice? I don't think so. Maybe there is a rare unicorn with the requisite skills, absolute perfect pitch, and access to reference recordings. Otherwise, engineering and measurements are important pieces to this puzzle.
|
|
@batvac2
Can audio components be designed entirely by ear- exchanging capacitors in the circuit based on the sustain of a piano in one recording or the input jacks based on one singer’s voice? . . . . Maybe there is a rare unicorn with the requisite skills, absolute perfect pitch, and access to reference recordings.
Well, not a unicorn exactly. Just a trained engineer--caring more about audio design than marketing--with a fine ear, a love of music, and the requisite skills. Perfect pitch not required. He would not be the only one in the history of high-end audio.
You seem to have put together an audio system that deserves better than the Topping as your source. Sooner or later you’ll want to trade up. By your selections, I’m guessing that you look for good value. Having hung around here for a while, the Musetec must be tempting. The testimonies here and elsewhere surely suggest that it is in the category of DACs costing far more. I’ll leave it at that.
|
Always comes down to a very simple question. Who is one trying to please, measuring bot or oneself?
I have Merlin VSM-MM as second speakers, I purchased based on a number of listening sessions at audio shows and speaking with Bobby. Yes, Bobby generally partnered with Ars Sonum, and I did find pairing alluring. Bobby chose this pairing based on his listening preferences, measurements played role in that he understood what was required of partnering amp. Virtually any solid state, push pull tube could adequately power the Merlins, Bobby chose Ars Sonum based on subjective listening tests.
And speaking of capacitors and ability to hear differences with this particular part exchange. Merlins originally came with Hovland caps in both speaker crossover and BAM, I was perhaps first to mod VSM with Duelund VSF caps. Result was far more natural timbre, greater transparency, resolving powers. I called Bobby with great enthusiasm for mod, Bobby not too happy with me, but could detect a fair amount of curiosity in regard to mod. And so, a few months later, Bobby comes out with new iteration of VMS with Duelund VSF caps! Point of this is, some are very familiar with certain sound qualities of systems and/or components, small changes can be extremely salient with this level of familiarity. These are not differences you're going to hear in double blind tests or short term listening with just a few recordings. Long term listening with wide variety of recordings in static setup required to detect these differences.
Musetec used above method to arrive at final sound qualities of 005, designer and/or designers used their ears and sonic preferences in voicing this dac. Assume measurements sacrificed for particular sound qualities.
Lastly, I would hope every designer of quality audio components has at least one audio system, preferable a number of them to voice those components. And the quality of that system, and the sonic preferences of designer certainly play a great role in final voicing. When preferences of designer and listener align we have sympathetic match!
Measuring bots and I not sympathetic match!
|
I spoke with Bobby a few times about his speakers - super nice guy. Apparently, massed choir was his passion. Which brings me to your point about voicing. I recently decided to learn some basics about audio, purchased a UMIK, and started making measurements- including simulated anechoic, on axis, off axis... My Merlin VSM-MXM have a clear 4-7db hump from about 700-1000 hz. With a lot of experimentation, I was able to create a reliable convolution filter that yields a smooth harman-like frequency response at the listening position (and emulates the BAM digitally so I could remove this). The filter - to my ears - is a real improvement - but the amount of improvement varies by music type. And one type of music actually seems to sound best (to me) without any correction: massed voices. As I hear it, goosing up the 700-1000hz region gives multiple singers a more "spread out" presentation.
For this, and other reasons, I more skeptical than you about audio designers being able to reliably pull off the trick of voicing.
|
as I have already stated, the MUSETEC has been inserted in a pure class A Gryphon system (https://gryphon-audio.dk) at my trusted dealer (https://www.evoluzionehifi.it/).
it was compared for about two months with all the DACs present as a demo in the store (as mentioned, from the NAGRA HD DAC X, to the dCS Vivaldi APEX DAC) plus some Topping DACs bought for fun (DX7Pro and DX7Pro +).
I have already expressed the results of the comparison
has any of you had the opportunity to test MUSETEC on a better system?
do you know any system, better than the one we use, which operates in pure class A and which is such as to allow you to appreciate the (sometimes significant) differences between the different sources?
I am willing to welcome feedback from anyone who can test the MH-DA005 in a better system than the one we are using
|
just for fun ..
Pure Class A
True Class A operation has always been a Gryphon hallmark. Why? Because no other circuit topology can match the sonic perfection of pure Class A. Unfortunately, true Class A is even rarer today than when we introduced the legendary DM100 in 1991. Rising consumer awareness has forced some manufacturers to make outrageous, unsubstantiated claims of Class A power ratings that have more to do with marketing than technology. There are a growing number of so-called “new” Class A topologies based on automatic biasing which supposedly allow the amplifier to sense when the bias should increase to ensure constant Class A performance!
Put bluntly, you can’t cheat physics. There are no engineering shortcuts when it comes to pure Class A, so we repeat with no apologies: TRUE, PURE CLASS A means heavy transformers, very large heatsinks, large quantities of expensive parts and costly assembly. While we appreciate and endorse every effort to conserve energy and preserve our global resources, our research into efforts to obtain Class A performance from class A/B topologies makes it clear that there simply is no substitute for the sheer magic of pure Class A.
However, based on thorough analysis of typical listening situations, we have invented “Green Bias” (“Green” for reduced environmental impact). Green Bias offers TRUE, PURE CLASS A with considerably lower power consumption than traditional solutions.
Green bias in the new Gryphon Apex allows the user to select the amount of Class A required to run his speakers fully in Class A at any given time, encompassing such factors as speaker sensitivity, room size, musical dynamics and overall volume level. Green bias improves on our programmable bias by giving Gryphon’s fortunate system owners the option of letting the preamplifier automatically control bias.
While Green bias does not match the extreme low power consumption of Class A/B, or even the low power consumption of misleading “auto-biasing” systems, it does offer significantly lower power consumption without sacrifice or compromise. PURE CLASS A performance is guaranteed! Apex users who own legacy Gryphon preamplifiers lacking Green Bias can access the programmable bias system manually via the Apex front panel.
|
The whole point of voicing is inherently subjective, either manufacturer and you sympathetic or not. Bobby wasn't trying to voice Merlins to appeal to every listener, no universal voicing for the masses. Above also may apply to specific genre of music a component or system works best with. VSM is particularly sensitive to this issue as lower bass simply missing in action.
Again, voicing is based on long term listening with variety of music in static system.
|
So, I owned Auralic Vega, LKS004, Okto Dac8 stereo, Musetec 005, all in house, comparative listening sessions. Based on ASR reviews, Okto one of top measuring dacs, Musetec pretty lame. And yet I heard greater resolving capabilities with 005 vs Okto, based on their measurements shouldn't have been possible.
It may also be informative to have ASR measure LKS004, highly resolving without soul IMO. We could see if LKS/Musetec capable of producing good measuring dac, would lend credence to idea 005 purposely produced for sound vs measurements.
|
@sns
my friend, why do you insist on wanting to see the measurements too? don't you trust your ears? no high-level DAC manufacturer provides the measurements made with the AP Audio Analyzer and do you know why? because such measures count for nothing with the sound result.
forget the technical data, rely on listening.
I repeat that an exhaustive mathematical modeling able to describe the variables that come into play in the audio reproduction process is impossible to achieve, the reason is simple: the variables involved are superior to the equations that bind them and the system is indeterminate.
|
| my friend, why do you insist on wanting to see the measurements too? don't you trust your ears?
We've been through this - I do research for a living. Case reports are the lowest form of evidence - they often provide false information about causal relationships. I know enough to know that my own ears have provided both reliable and unreliable evidence depending on the type of music, equipment, mood, and time of day,
On occasion, I will consider individual listening reports - always with some skepticism - IF the person listens to music for a living and is able to intelligently describe differences in sound- that is a rare individual. For the general population, I am confident playing Vegas odds that you could not reliably distinguish the Musetec in any sort of believable controlled experiment, and that any possible differences would be removed by changing the music or other gear.
This was never about the false idea that minute differences in distortion profiles, signal-to-noise ratio, linearity, and other measurable characteristics can somehow be amalgamated into a predictable sound signature. These characteristics - to me - provide a broad sense of the fitness of the engineering and industrial design. For an amplifier, a 2 db difference in channels or separation less than 70 db may not even be audible to most people. But - for me - these signal other problems that exclude the component from audition.
|
@americanspirit Nothing to do with not trusting my sonic preferences or listening sense, more about sheer curiosity. Perhaps some day we'll have measurement protocol that more closely aligns with our listening senses. This will require technical innovation from those with an open mind, I wouldn't mind seeing the objective and subjective come together, I maintain hope!
|
@batvac2 You said: "These [quantitative] characteristics - to me - provide a broad sense of the fitness of the engineering and industrial design."
I think what you are saying, if I can restate, is your method of evaluating the quality of a piece of audio equipment, includes measured excellence, not because it will necessarily sound better, but because it gives you confidence in the quality, much like provenance to a work of art. It is not just your subjective experience alone, but the customary earmarks of quality. A fake work or art may be just as enjoyable as the original, but you want also what is generally accepted as an earmark of quality.
|
Yes, but I think a little more because it is an engineered device rather than a painting. It has to produce an analog signal that bears resemblance to its input in terms of frequency, phase, linearity, timing... even if the source material is not ideally recorded. The "art" is in passing as much of the signal as possible, including any warts and blemishes. Still, no device can do this perfectly, and there seems to be no way - other than listening - to predict how small differences in each characteristic of reproduction and their interaction will combine to form perceived sound. So I am comfortable letting personal taste dictate the choice of component among those with the highest degree of fidelity.
|
@batvac2 brings out unique qualities of high end audio, content of what we play is artistic, and the highest quality reproduction of that content is what we seek. We desire maximum engagement with the artist and his/her art. So the pursuit is inherently artistic, yet we have mitigating factors of technology, engineering, measurements. The subjective/objective conundrum remains constant.
We shouldn't fight with competing dogmas, rather learn to live with the imperfectness of both. I'd hope we'd all admit our human senses and measurement protocols far from perfect, room for improvement in both, just leave it at that.
|
My, my. How many angels are dancing on the head of this pin?
Consider two different strikes of an etching taken a few days apart. Number one has the artist’s signature on it He signed it and died the next day. He never saw the second, which was the next strike numbered consecutively, and it is indistinguishable from the first but for the signature. Both of them share the embossed stamp of the print studio guaranteeing authenticity.
The first will surely sell for more, probably much more. But is the second any less of an artistic achievement not worthy of the same admiration?
|
Perceptions can become beliefs which in turn become truths.
|
@melm Nice hypothetical. Were you a philosophy major? I was.
|
I don't see how that analogy applies. In audio, the finished recoding is all we get - a product of the musicians and engineers who put the thing together. If they were highly capable and a good match then we get lucky. If an inexperienced tech boosted the loudness by 20 db and applied a smiley faced EQ curve then we are irreversibly screwed. Do the two different strikes of the etching represent two different components trying to reproduce the identical recording? If so, then of course the "unique voicing" of one may form a particularly nice synergy with specific recordings. But I hold out that closer to reality will be more enjoyable over an entire music collection.
|
@batvac2
What persuaded me early on was the description of the excellent, and costly, parts used by the engineer/designer in producing the Musetec DAC. No one in their right mind, or so it seemed to me, was going to use this quality of parts but that each one made a noticeable improvement in the sound quality. I saw nothing like it in comparably priced products.
This thread, now with 110,000 views and 1300 posts, has plenty of testimonies from satisfied owners, each of whom seems to have considerable of experience in audio and with other DACs. And as you well know, the DAC has been compared carefully, and often favorably, to other far more expensive ones. Notwithstanding all that, like the owner of the print without the signature, what you are left with that would seem to keep you from enjoying this DAC to its fullest is fundamentally nothing more than a qualm. So be it!
As for "closer to reality," I can provide you with nothing better than this. If you can find a review of any DAC anywhere with this level of description against reality, I am ready to read it. I hold to the Harry Pearson dictum that if a component can reproduce classical music well, it can reproduce everything well. The full range of unamplified classical music in real space is the ultimate audio test.
|
I invite all followers of pseudoscience to view this object ... no measurement is reported ... so presumably it will have lower performance than Toppings
https://wadax.eu/reference/
@batvac2 😂🤣😂🤣you make me laugh, are you a flat-earther?
|
The signal to noise ratios rather meaningless for dacs in general, far below analog portions of our setups. Jitter measurements do have bearing on what we hear, still relatively small variations in ASR measurements really don't have much real world impact since the rest of streaming network provides much greater variability of jitter.
It would be interesting to see Wadax measured at ASR, presume it would not be stand out in overall measurements. That's what gets me most about ASR, the relatively small variability of dac measurements tell you so little about how these dacs sound in real world setups, let alone how they sound relative to each other!
|
Flat earther? No- academic physician, lead a large research group, teach, and have hundreds of published papers. Afraid I have drank the Kool Aid of reality.
I agree completely with sns - tiny differences in signal to noise ratio or jitter are unlikely to be audible; there is absolutely NO reason to choose a DAC based on a sinad of 130 versus 127. That was never my point. The point was that gross errors in basic measurements - whether audible or not - are worrisome for larger design and engineering flaws. Plus it feels like buying a brand new car with a ding on it.
Yes Melm that was a good review and agree that classical is probably the best for auditioning because it is typically natural instruments in space. I am generally unmoved by “quality of the parts” arguments except maybe for the analog attenuator- would be more excited if Nelson Pass or Air Tight designed the output stage.
|
@batvac2
what you do or what you have has no value for me, what you are has value for me.
the way you speak shows only ignorance, presumption and a huge ego. I tell you to Socrates, you should simply understand one thing, the more you know the more you know you don't know ...
for the record, at the present time the Wadax is considered the best DAC on the world hi-end market
|
@melm
too bad the recent entries in this thread have become such a bore
anyhow, hope you are still enjoying the 005
i suppose in sum total it is a good thing this thread has continuing participation, so that more folks coming here can learn about the dac and the good value in represents in higher end dacs
|
Just replaced my Audioquest Pearl USB cable with a WireWorld Starlight Platinum 8. Liking the added detail & ambiance of this cable.
|
@boxer12
As compared to other DACS I have used, the Musetec seems to have what I would call a fuller treble that’s a bit hard to describe. It’s not a tipped up top end, but rather a fullness that has the effect of filling out the overtones of instruments. I wrote about its ultimate effects here.
Nice that you have found a USB cable that works for you. I have experimented with cables of all sorts. The DAC seems to respond to cables: the power cable, the XLR cable and the USB cable. I have used silver cables with success on other DACs, but I have found that at the moment copper cables are the most natural sounding with the Musetec. I continue to use Pearl USB. I went to a chamber orchestra concert last weekend so my ears are calibrated. What happens when I substitute a silver cable (either USB or XLR) is that a couple of my very best recordings sound extra specially good. I’m coming to think of that as a super pleasant (euphonic) surreal effect. However many, many of my recordings then seem a bit strident. Back to copper and everything is back to comfort--back to natural. I know it’s all extremely system dependent and especially due to my close listening space, roughly an 8 foot equilateral triangle--speakers facing forward. I keep looking for something that might add just a tiny bit of that silver magic while maintaining the natural quality and the great sound stage of the Audioquest. However I am aware that solid silver USB cables have worked very well for others here.
@jjss49
I confess to having contributed to the boredom. The good doctor is happy with the Topping and we shall move on.
|
@melm - I agree it is very system/room dependent.
|
My experiences with the Musetec and silver (USB cables only) mirror that of @melm. I tried the Audioquest Diamond and Supra Excalibur and I prefer copper USB cables such as the Acoustic BBQ Helix and Sablon 2020.
|
If one dislikes sound quality with AQ Diamond its due to some coloration elsewhere in system. AQ Diamond is probably the most forgiving of top echelon usb cables, this based on many comparative reviews I've observed over the years, and my personal experience. The added bonus of Diamond vs lower AQ models is increased transparency, resolution.
Get your timbre, tonality, harmonic development right, only then will higher resolving, transparent cables show their full capabilities. Towards that end, recent replacement of Audyn True Copper Max and Miflex KPCU coupling caps in 300B amps with Duelund CAST PIO tinned copper has provided both greater resolution, transparency, but more importantly more natural timbre. Harmonic development with these caps has really turned the corner, 005 is now moving into REAL SOUL territory!
Further major changes coming in form of near SOTA custom build music server, power supply and install of Euphony Stylus Version 4. This is not just music player, but full operating system for music servers. This will be tested along with Roon for best sound quality. I'm expecting these purchases in home by next week.
|
From recent comments here it looks like I am not the only one here experimenting with cables of all sorts. Like may high-end devices I find the Musetec to be very sensitive to cables: power, USB & analog. I noted that in my particular set-up silver USB cables that had been very effective with other components seemed to give a surrealistic (and sometimes very pleasant) sound to many recordings used with the Musetec. Similarly recently with silver XLRs. That's uniquely what I hear in my own system and I am persuaded that there is no cable that can be optimal in every quality system. I know some will think otherwise.
In my last post I said I had "calibrated" my ears by going to a concert given by a small orchestra in an appropriately small performance space. I had missed concert going during the Covid period. When I go to a concert like this I can't help comparing it to listening at home. Calibrating one's ears is not a bad way to put it. When The Absolute Sound was run by Harry Pearson and was worth reading, each of his reviewers was required to attend concerts of unamplified music on a regular basis, to "calibrate" their ears.
The possibility of making a component sound better-than-real reminded me of how friends in the past had sometimes remarked that classical concerts sounded dull compared to their stereo systems. Of course anyone can make their system sound any way they wish. Unfortunately though, I don't think any reviewers these days, print or video, are listening for accuracy to the real thing, rather than simply expressing personal likes and dislikes in audiophile jargon.
|
@melm
In my last post I said I had "calibrated" my ears by going to a concert given by a small orchestra in an appropriately small performance space. I had missed concert going during the Covid period. When I go to a concert like this I can’t help comparing it to listening at home. Calibrating one’s ears is not a bad way to put it. When The Absolute Sound was run by Harry Pearson and was worth reading, each of his reviewers was required to attend concerts of unamplified music on a regular basis, to "calibrate" their ears
Excellent points made, particularly this one concerning calibrating one’s ears by listening to live acoustic instruments (And human vocalists). I’ve have done this for many years. This year I’ve attended 7 live performances and going to a piano recital this evening. Jazz club show next week.
One thing that is unfailingly consistent with live un-amplified music, it’s very full bodied with vivid, rich and colorful tone. There is so much beauty, emotion and presence when listening to these live instruments. I can understand how someone used to modern hyper detailed emphasize components would actually find the live instruments dull by comparison.
In my opinion the pursuit and emphasis on achieving ever more “detail” and “inky black” backgrounds has unintentionally moved away from a natural realistic sound presentation. Melm, I definitely understand your perspective.
Charles
|
Above posts are good for voicing one's system. I also use my own voice in order to ascertain natural timbre, tonality of my system. I love to sing, sang in many choirs back in the day, so often sing within my dedicated listening room. Really belt it out with operatic voice, hearing live voice within one's own room is extremely enlightening. Speaking, clapping, whistling, yelling can all be helpful as well, sometimes ugly sounds very telling, don't want to beautify the ugly. Used all the above in determining best use of acoustic treatments for my dedicated listening room, wide variety of music as well.
The one issue with using unamplified live music for voicing one's system is we then have to rely on aural memory. Not to say its not valid method, hearing a good amount of this over a lifetime certainly helps in training our sensory perceptions. Listening to live and reproduced music over audio systems in analytical mode is a skill, practice improves this skill. Just leaves out the insights gained from instant comparison to live voice and/or sounds reproduced within our listening rooms.
As far as colorations within systems, I maintain my estimation of neutral voicing of 005, silver content of wiring doesn't upset in the least. In my setup silver only adds transparency, resolving capability, no brightness or spotlighting of highs, no thinning of mids and bass, in fact I'd say highs and mids sound most natural with the aprox. 50/50 copper/silver content I currently employ. Excessive copper can harden mids, close in highs to some extent, silver opens things back up, and adds delicacy and sophistication.
No to say, I'm unaware of downsides of sliver in some systems, I've had systems in past very sensitive to silver, spotlit highs, thinning of mids, bass, so understand not for everyone.
I'd just like everyone to understand 005 is not inherently allergic to silver, this dac is voiced wonderfully, while it may not be warm enough for every taste and system, it is not hifish sounding. 005 not scared of silver or even rhodium, capable of wonderful harmonic development with a variety of metals.
|
Does anyone remember if the Briscasti DACs were compared to the Musetec 005 on this thread. The thread has gotten big and I do not follow all the posts anymore.
|
@yyzsantabarbara
Too bad that Audiogon does not support a "search within thread" function. it would often be a great help.
The best you can do here is to use the general search on "Musetec Bricasti". You will come up with something.
|
Actually I did that just now and came across some posts by the person that sold me his Musetec 005 (my second one). He compared it to the Bricasti M1 SE. I used different search terms to find the post, A’gon search is pretty lame.
The post I found was very useful and answered exactly what I wanted to know. I was considering using a Benchmark LA4 preamp with a Musetec 005 DAC on my new Livingroom system, which will use new KRELL amp(s) and KEF Blade 2 Meta. I have the 005 and LA4 already in my completed office system, with Benchmark AHB2 monos. So I know that pairing is great.
My dealer is telling me to try a different preamp from the LA4 for the KRELL. He suggested the Bricasti. Reading the post on this thread that compared the M1 SE DAC with the 005 DAC made me think I do not need the Bricasti DAC. I already have the 005 and Sonore OpticalRendu that I am sure is close to the Network streaming card of the Bricasti M12 Source Controller with DAC (mine could be even better). Though the M12 is a cleaner and simpler solution if the Ethernet streaming is as good as my Sonore OpticalRendu.
I am now thinking of giving the Bricasti M20 preamp (no DAC) a demo with the 005. Mainly to be sonically different (not better) from my office system which is Benchmark LA4 preamp | Musetec 005 | Benchmark AHB2 monos | KEF LS50 Meta + KEF KC62 sub. The office system is super clean and precise with the 005 adding some smoothness.
The Livingroom system could be a rounder and smoother sound with the Bricasti preamp | Musetec 005 DAC | KRELLL XD amp(s) | KEF Blade 2 Meta.
BTW - I just sold my CODA 07x preamp which is 1/2 the price of the Bricasti M20 and has similar features. I liked the quieter and more detailed LA4 more than the 07x, The 07x with the 005 DAC was at the far edge of smoothness for my particular tastes.
If anyone cares. Some smart guys talking about the Sonore streaming vs Bricasti streaming.
Bricasti M1 > M5 > M12: Network Player - Member REVIEW - w/OEM Response from Brian Zolner President Bricasti - Page 2 - Music Servers - Audiophile Style
|
I've had the Holo Audio Serene Level 1 preamp for a few months now. It's an excellent pairing with the 005. There is a review out there from Alpha Audio that mentions the performance of the Serene against the HPA4. I agree with the findings from that review. Being a former owner of the HPA4/LA4, I understand well the comparison. I highly recommend the Serene preamp with the 005 and its cost is a fraction of something like a Bricasti M20.
|
|
|
@yyzsantabarbara The Serene review seems impossibly contradictory. More transparent than the Benchmark, but yet more engaging and musical. I would need a lot more information in order to understand what exactly their reporting.
|
@dbb I don't believe those two attributes need be contradictory. A pre can be both more transparent and engaging and musical together. A more transparent pre mated with engaging and musical system would provide more insight into those attributes vs less transparent pre. The Serene does look like nice pre based on that review.
|
@sns I agree it's possible. I just need more information to understand the details of how they achieved it. One question would be: how does does it handle mediocre, harsh, or thin recordings? Would the result still be musical or fatiguing?
|
@sns
It seems to me that the vocal excercises you outline might work to help "voice" your listening room rather than the component system.
When I go to a dealer or a show I always carry with me, in one form or another, some music files with which I am very familiar. It is easy and inevitable that I would compare what I am hearing there to what I hear at home. It requires no special aural memory to do that. I suppose we have all done that. It may, though, require some insight to separate the different room from the different components. I believe someone here has written of taking his Musetec to a dealer in order to focus more carefully on a different component of interest. IMO that is much the same, and requires similar aural memory skills, when visiting a concert. In fact, avoiding that comparison is virtually impossible--for me.
IMO the Musetec is agnostic when it comes to silver cables. It probably has much more to do with the rest of the system.
You are correct when you say that the Musetec is voiced wonderfully. I would say, accurately. I do not want a component to be "warm." That would be coloration, a distortion. The DAC should be neutral. A cello, piano or bassoon can sound warm and the neutrality of the DAC should let that warm color of the instrument through. I think this is a common misunderstanding of what a good component should accomplish.
It is all too common that components that measure very well will reproduce instruments and voices as flat and colorless. This forum, like others, then find their owners asking for recomendations for amps/preams/DACs that sound warm. One way this often happens is as a request for recommendations of solid state units that sound like tubes.
@dbb
"The Serene review seems impossibly contradictory. More transparent than the Benchmark, but yet more engaging and musical. I would need a lot more information in order to understand what exactly their reporting."
As i wrote earlier, reviews today are "simply expressing personal likes and dislikes in audiophile jargon." Forget asking for more; that’s what they do. Not to mention extolling the detail in the sound of a dentist drill. And with a song he gets a lump in his throat. Who knows? It could be Covid-19!
|
My own experience with long term pursuit of ever increasing levels of transparency/resolution is that vast majority of recording sound more real, like flesh and blood performers. Fundamental issue that needs to be addressed is timbre, tonality, get that part right with analog section of system first, than you can pursue greater resolution/transparency via source components. With streaming jitter is the critical factor, timing is everything if seeking analog like sound qualities.
I listen to pretty much every genre and quality of recording, very rare I have to remove recording from library due to intolerable sound quality. Some think you have to color sound to get here, I beg to differ, the more natural sound one's system produces the wider variety of recordings one can listen to. I don't consider natural a coloration, I've had both romantic and analytical systems, those were colored systems. Both made certain recordings intolerable, you know you've hit the mark when pleasurable listening sessions don't require a culling of recordings based on sound quality.
|
@sns " . . . Both [analytical and romantic approachess] made certain recordings intolerable, you know you've hit the mark when pleasurable listening sessions don't require a culling of recordings based on sound quality."
Yes. This is my goal. I've experimented with two inexpensive highly transparent preamps, the Topping Pre90 and the Gustard P26. Some recordings were wonderfully clear but too many others were rendered thin, harsh, and fatiguing. My more expensive, but older Hegel P30 still managed to beat them in realism, natural timber, and texture even though it is not SOTA in transparency. Hegel is coming out soon with an updated P30 that may have SOTA transparency.
|
I thought about what I should do last night regarding a preamp for my Livingroom system. I considered the Bricasti M12, Meitner M3, SimAudio 390, T+A 200 DAC, and some others.
I also considered some standalone DACs with the HoloMay Serene such as the Rockna WaveDream SE XLR, Mola Mola Tambaqui, and Bricasti M1 SE.
However, The advantages of the LA4 or HoloMay Serene preamps + the Musetec 005 brought me back to that combo. Which is what I will use (if the Serene is what I expect).
My only issue with the Musetec 005 is that it does not pair well with my RAAL VM-1a headphone amp in my office. I use a Benchmark DAC3B for that. However, a single DAC to hook up to both my VM-1a system and KEF LS50 Meta system would be ideal. I am duplicating the optical streaming in my office for the 2 DACs, a waste of money
Getting the very best setup for the VM-1a is important to me since at the moment it is my very best sound. I think the Livingroom ’big’ system should surpass it but you never know when the room gets involved.
|
