Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

@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

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.

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!

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?

@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 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.

@melm Nice hypothetical. Were you a philosophy major? I was.

Perceptions can become beliefs which in turn become truths.

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?

@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.

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  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.

@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!

| 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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

@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.

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

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 

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!

@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.

| 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.

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

@batvac2 

I wrote "some Chinese producers" and I mentioned "Topping, SMSL and Gustard" 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.

the brands I mentioned have superb measurements in relation to a sound result not comparable (in default) with devices that have worse measurements.

this happens because the measurements made are based exclusively on a few and insufficient parameters able to describe the physical phenomenon. these manufacturers know this and take advantage of it by building and designing their own devices just to respond to these measures.

they don't care about the sound result, they noticed a big jump in sales following the publication of the results of the measurements, and that's enough to continue along this path that is not at all ethical.

I repeat that it is very easy to compare the sound performance of these low-cost DACs compared to the more "famous" DACs, just listen to them on high-level systems. anyone can pick out the differences, you don't need sensitive ears like a calibration microphone ... the two free pavilions offered by mother nature are enough!

| Chinese manufacturers produce DACs that respond perfectly to poor Amir's tests

By "Amir's tests", are you referring to fundamental tests of linearity, noise, and distortion that are staples of audio engineering? Do you think Mola Mola and Holo specifically produce DACs that "respond to Amir's tests" (they measured great)?

| In the engineering field, the analysis of the variables involved in sound reproduction is very similar to those that occur in the presence of tubulence

Are you trying to argue that perceived sound quality represents a complex interaction among many variables. Fine. In this case, a couple of those variables were found to be dysfunctional in single variable testing, Why combine them?

| Who has Topping in his audio chain is probably a person who only pays attention savings so I don't expect it to have a high-end system alas ...

Mine takes upsampled DSD256 from HQ player into an Ars Sonum integrated tube amp and Merlin speakers. I recognize this is not the highest end gear. Alas...

I cannot bear the claims of superiority of pseudo science over human senses.

agreed that part is distasteful, but why harp on it?

you can see via amir’s system, he is not an audiophile, he is a clever tech dude monetizing a niche, a circle of like minded folks with like minded blind spots - he can be a robin hood in his own mind with eager followers...lots of advice givers in the world with weak legs they stand on

we are much more passionate about this pursuit, in our way, different from his, it should be water off a duck’s back, so to speak

this isn’t to say that what becomes ’recommended’ by amir is necessarily bad... we all know that any piece of equipment fits into a chain, that chain has a certain level of musicality and resolving power, and of course, synergy matters ... much of it is just fine, just like my $15 zin serves its purpose for me well...

interesting, just stumbled into this from john darko

@jjss49 Whenever I go wine tasting in the Bay Area (Napa + Sonoma) I always ask for a straw.

.. (who has a Topping in his audio chain is probably a person who only pays attention savings so I don't expect it to have a high-end system alas ...)

I have a Topping D90LE in one of my systems and it produces a sound that bring me happiness. It was not about cost but more about synergy for this pairing.  Schitt Jotenhueim | Topping D90LE | RAAL CA-1a + SR1a 

@jjss49 

you seem a very calm and contemplative person, I agree with most of your statements, what I don't like is one thing.

I cannot bear the claims of superiority of pseudo science over human senses.

the adepts of poor Amir (who obviously read these posts) consider humans who rely on the senses as deficient, and they consider superior people (not intellectually prepared) who rely on ad hoc measures that have nothing to do with full modeling of reality.

in the engineering field, the analysis of the variables involved in sound reproduction is very similar to those that occur in fluid dynamics in the presence of tubulence (n differential equations, n + x unknowns)

only the ignorant can only think of being able to approach the explanation of the phenomenon with four elementary equations understandable even to chickens ...

@americanspirit

from one point of view, all this asr stuff is fine

not everyone cares about sonic excellence and are willing to pay for it, but people still want to feel good about themselves, their decisions... this asr stuff provides handy rationalization, especially for those who have a quantitative/science-oriented bent (never mind that what asr delves into is more ’pseudo-science’ actually but we will leave that be...)

i think it is fine because these people spend what little they want, feel good about it, and presumably enjoy the music - this can be looked at as an entry path into broader musical enjoyment, better quality of life as a result, which is positive

then if there is a subset of these folks who are more passionate, more discriminating, and over time, put forth the thought, effort and expense to test the ’wisdom’ that asr espouses, those folks will then undoubtedly discover its limitations and obtain much better sounding music to enjoy

silly analogy, i sometimes enjoy a little wine with dinner, but i am not a wine connoisseur, don’t care to be -- so i buy relatively inexpensive $10-20/bottles of wine marketed by some popular websites, with their claims about point-ratings, reviewer blurbs, i then enjoy that wine with everyday meals - i don’t care enough to be an expert, don’t want to invest the effort to deep dive into the topic, don't want to pay more, don't care to appreciate some minute differences, it’s just average/above average wine to sip, to accompany the good food which i consider the real centerpiece of meals - life for me goes on just fine...

the more I read the Topping enthusiasts the more I wonder what system they use and if they have compared their products with other brands.

what I want to bring to the attention of true Hi Fi fans is that most likely some Chinese manufacturers (Topping, SMSL, Gusrtard, ...) produce DACs that respond perfectly to poor Amir's tests but are scarce in everyday listening.

to obviate my statement just test the top of the poor Amir's list with the MUSETEC, obviously you need a system that allows you to appreciate the differences ... (who has a Topping in his audio chain is probably a person who only pays attention savings so I don't expect it to have a high-end system alas ...)

@batvac2
You named some DACs you might be interested in. I suggest you audition any of them and then let us know then if "fantastic" still applies to the Topping that will probably measure better than most of them. Topping DACs seem to be designed with ASR in mind. The Musetec SQ has been compared with two of them here and, while one may be preferred over the other in a particular system, they are said to be of comparable quality. The Musetec SQ has also been compared favorably, here and elsewhere, to that of the Mola Mola Tambaqui and also to the Chord Hugo 2 with the M Scaler.

The difference, though, is that while the SQ of all of these has been said to be at least comparable, the Musetec costs but a fraction of what the others cost. Where I come from, THAT is what is called fine engineering.

PS: In the early solid state days popular tube amps had about 2% IM and HD at rated outputs; solid state under 1%. Do some research and you’ll find it.

The engineer admits to choosing parts based on SQ, not measurements.  

Yes, so simply and openly acknowledged by the builder. Why so difficult for some to comprehend?

Charles

"I don’t view the measurements of the musetec as the cause of how the unit sounds but more as a general indication of the engineering involved."

The engineer admits to choosing parts based on SQ, not measurements.  

| you seem to be wasting this time writing when you could be listening…

That was a very long post - you could have been listening to your musetec… I compared the topping d90 to my previous DAC - an Eximus DP1 - and liked the d90 more. It is going into an integrated tube amp. Of course other dac designs may sound different. Like most people I don’t have endless time to compare dacs - when the time comes, I will pick from different designs that have been reported to sound great and measure well, such as Holo, T and A, Weiss, and Meitner. And no - early solid state did NOT measure well. I don’t view the measurements of the musetec as the cause of how the unit sounds but more as a general indication of the engineering involved. 

 @melm 

In choosing parts for his DACs he listens and chooses those that add to SQ as he hears it even if they cost in measurement stats.

The only decision to make “if”  obtaining the best possible sound quality with a given design/product is the true objective.

Charles

@batvac2 
No one is saying that they are pleased that a component doesn't measure well.  What a good number of people here have said is that standard measurements tell you very little about how a component will sound.  The only thing that matters is how it actually sounds.  Nothing else matters.  Period.  End of story.

This is such an old theme in audio that it seems trivial to keep repeating.  Cheap Japanese direct drive turntables measured better by standard measurements than did expensive belt drives.  And with the help of the audio press then, tons of them were sold, and they sounded awful.  Early solid state "measured" better than time-tested tubed electronics and the audio press of the day helped sell tons of these too.  They sounded awful too.  And even today, solid state measures better than tubes; digital measures better than analog, and on and on.  We have NEVER developed measurements that tell us accurately what we want to know about a high end audio component and that is: how does it sound?  IMO the most useful measurements made these days are for loudspeakers.  Yet no speaker measurement yet devised can tell me what I really want to know about a speaker and that is: will it disappear?  Yes, for all of these components we have to listen!  

At the time of the measurement discussion I wrote this.  There are some things worth emphasizing.  Per the designer of the Musetec it is relatively easy for any trained electrical engineer to produce a DAC that measures very well.  China has a lot of trained engineers, many more than we have.  In choosing parts for his DACs he listens and chooses those that add to SQ as he hears it even if they cost in measurement stats.  That's it.  The very many here who have heard and admire the Musetec have come to agree that he has a refined musical sensitivity.  Now that may be hard to come by, in China or anywhere.  But as an engineer, a real engineer, he can produce this very musical component at a relatively low price relative to other very fine sounding DACs.  That's what good engineers do.  But you say that this approach "bugs" you.  As I say in the post referred to, if you find that disturbing then perhaps this DAC is not for you.  

You say your $900 Topping sounds fantastic.  And we all know that Toppings measure well over at ASR.  Then I have to wonder what brings you here.  Giving what you write, you seem to be wasting this time writing when you can be enjoying your Topping.  You haven't though told us to what other DAC you have compared your Topping, nor anything about the system it feeds into.  So we have no context at all for your "fantastic" description.  But you go on to write that you'd evidently like to do a listening test yourself to see if what has been described, designing for sound alone, is really possible.  So perhaps you really don't believe that the Topping is the best of all possibilities for you.   So you can relieve your anxieties by trying out a better DAC.  Musetecs have done pretty well on the used market for there are so few of them there.  So you wouldn't really be risking all that much by trying.  Wait for one of the Shenzhenaudio sales.

but in this case would personally need to see objective listening tests or do them myself before believing that a component with accidental errors in measurement sounds better than one without these errors. 

Yes, listen for yourself and form your own conclusions. Whichever one you choose at least the decision is based on how it sounds in your audio system. Measured test bench results are less important than what you will hear with your own ears. How does this DAC sound playing your music in your audio system? Most important criteria.

Charles

True. This one bugs me because it does not appear to be a purposeful design strategy, such as when Nelson Pass or Ralph Karsten add a little more second order distortion, describe their rationale, and could re-design the component any way they want. Here, the designer admitted not having the requisite equipment to test the DAC or full awareness of the IMD issue with the ESS chip as a start. Associations that are supported by plausibility are more likely to be valid than those that are less plausible. I'm not calling for blinded listening tests all the time, but in this case would personally need to see objective listening tests or do them myself before believing that a component with accidental errors in measurement sounds better than one without these errors. 

. I don’t understand the point of celebrating poor measurements as some sort of badge of honor.

I don’t get that impression. He actually (And wisely) compared the two DACs and said the Musetec 005 clearly was better sounding than the Topping DAC. These are audio products so listening to them is the best way to determine which one of them you’d prefer to own in your audio system.

Other listeners have described the Topping DAC sound quality in the same manner as @americanspirit . Others have enjoyed their sound. Nothing new here with the subjectivity and inevitable different outcomes/opinions.

Charles

My Topping D90 (original with AKM chip) sounds fantastic receiving upsampled DSD256 data from HQ player. It also sounds really good receiving upsampled 768hz data, which I believe disables the internal filter of the DAC.

Last night I put my Topping D90LE (their top DAC minus MQA) in with my RAAL VM-1a tube headphone amp. The Musetec 005 is not good with the VM-1a. The Topping D90LE was fantastic with the VM-1a. I think it was even better than the Benchmark DA3B on the VM-1a. There is a tiny bit of hardness on the DAC3B and VM-1a which seems to go away with the Topping. I was using the Topping in the DAC's 'tube'  filter mode.

I also bought a second Musetec 005 and have it in storage for my future Livingroom 2-channel system. 

So what it your hypothesis here- that a lower signal to noise ratio yields a more "musical" sound? That deviations from linearity produce a more three-dimensional soundstage? Topping probably uses a lot of negative feedback in their analog output stage, which can sometimes result in a "flatter" presentation if the "euphonic" lower order distortions are preferentially suppressed. I don't understand the point of celebrating poor measurements as some sort of badge of honor. 

Have you noticed that topping is churning out DACs over DACs designed to respond superbly to poor amir's classic tests? then you go to listen to them and all this magic measured in amir's fantastic tests disappears and gives way to a disconcerting flatness. it is now well established that either one or the other is carrying out an act that is not at all ethical.

I had the opportunity to listen and compare the dx7pro + with the Musetech in my system and, as expected, there is no story ...

used to the sound of my MH-DA005 switching to the new Topping was like switching from the light of a clear and sunny day to the light of a dark and cloudy day!

in the ranking of the poor amir stilled together with his lucky followers, the topping dx7 + is in first place (124 dB SINAD) while the MUSETECH is in over 250th place (96 dB SINAD)