Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC
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 |
@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. |
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. |
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. |
It is “very” helpful and insightful. I sincerely appreciate your impressions. BTW, McIlroy is looking good as the leader thus far.
|
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 |
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 |
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
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 |
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 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. |
@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. |
| Post removed |
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 |
@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. |
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." |
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
|
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. |
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 |
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. |
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. 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 |
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! |
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. |
Absolutely 100% agree, this mirrors my amplifier progression. Transistor-tube push pull-DHT SET (Most pure sounding). If the Musetec 005 is cut from the same cloth, it is quite an accomplishment and a special DAC. Charles |
Charles, One other term I'd add for CSLS and DHT, SET amps in general. From the first moment I heard an SET amp IMMEDIATE was the one word that came to mind, and one I'd not used prior. DHT have unique sensation of transporting performers to you in a way I've not heard with any push pull or SS amps and pre's. I think this is combination of sound staging and extreme transparency of these most elemental circuits, straight wire concept at work here, not much between you and signal. 005's extreme resolving abilities and micro dynamic performance really took things over the top! |
Charles, I agree the exact words don't matter much, after this much time in audio, vast majority know what is meant.
As for CSLS, I wouldn't change a thing. My question is do these terms convey a color? Likely I see more requests for something called warmth when asking about component sound, makes me think many systems are colored, always trying to play one color against another. CSLS, and 005 for that matter don't play the color game, I've often stated 005 as sounding neutral, CSLS fits the bill as well. Neutral, organic, natural, they all convey a component not playing color game. Assemble a system from components with these properties, along with highly resolving, transparent, dynamic, and you'll hear live performers in room, illusion of real live flesh and blood in room. Ha, just occurred to me, I'm describing an ORGANIC presentation, perhaps using that word not so wrongheaded!
I'll also add, while these words are indeed semantics for a general audiophile audience, the more I examine the exact words in depth, and how they relate to how I hear sound, they can and do have different meanings. It can be really difficult to get across to others the exact experience of sound one feels when listening to their system, words can be so imprecise, and we can't always know other's interpretations of these words. |
I have owned my Coincident Statement Line stage (CSLS) for 13 wonderful years. I’ve been asked on numerous occasions to describe its essential sonic character. The terms I employ over and over again are pure, resolved, open, transparent, dynamic and organic/natural. As a fellow CSLS owner would you change any of these? Charles |
You illustrate my earlier point in that it is predominately a semantics issue. There is not to my knowledge a precise and strict vocabulary in High End audio. So this leads to a communications problem when attempting to express oneself with written words (Particularly in back and forth forum discussions). Sure, I could have typed natural rather than organic. Even then someone will take issue and say, "what do you mean by natural?" Given the desire to describe our listening experiences which are emotion based, we all search for words and terms to convey what we mean. Another example is the popular term "neutral" . Okay neutral relative to what reference or standard? All we can do is to try our best to communicate as best we are able to via written text. Describing what one hears listening to audio components reproduce music is not particularly easy to do. We all try our best. Charles |
With posters or reviewers I'm familiar with I generally understand the meaning of words used in describing sound qualities. I generally find organic and natural to be interchangeable, however, I do have issue with organic in that it can only be rightly applied to the human voice, otherwise humans are playing instruments that aren't organic.
Natural has it's own issues in what is natural supposed to sound like with amplified instruments and vocals. Recording, sound reinforcement equipment has inherent sound qualities, add our likely totally unique set of audio equipment and natural has virtually no means to test it's validity. Natural timbre, which I use quite often, has same issue.
I sort of like the term analog like, but that presumes others hear or have heard analog audio reproduction. Also, quality of the analog one has heard may greatly color their perceptions, if one had only heard lower level analog, may perceive it as a negative.
My favorite and most usual term is 'performers in room', for me this takes many individual terms/words into account, a system that reproduces the sense of artists/performers in room is highest goal of audio reproduction, IMO. |
Then as the Brits would say, the word "organic" is not fit for purpose. We need to agree on the meaning of words if we are to communicate. If "organic is synonymous with natural in [your] vocabulary," why not just say "natural."
|
Yes, un-amplified jazz venue. No use of microphones needed for the relatively modest audience space. I heard tenor and baritone saxophones, trumpet, piano, stand up acoustic bass, drum kit.and jazz guitar. A fabulous feast for the ears. You can’t get more natural than this type of setting. The epitome of organic. 😊 Charles |
“But please understand music can never sound organic, it’s a word that you have been accustomed and conditioned to, but it really doesn’t exist” organic for me does not imply some form of added warmth or coloration, to others who use this term it surely does imply this. As I mention in my earlier post, Organic is the highest of complements toward an electronic audio product. It represents natural purity, and “breath of life “ realism. The polar opposite of artificial, fake,electronic and mechanical. This lofty goal is difficult to achieve. So again it is obvious (And understood) organic means different things to different people. I just wanted to clarify my use and interpretation of the term. Charles
|
I first heard the word organic when Meridian launched their 500 series IIRC at the Earl's Court, London HIFI show in the late '80s. It was a truly beautiful if not cloured sound they produced. The first real assault on vinyl if you like. I was so enamoured I bought a CD player, can't remember which one. 506 maybe? Anyways since then I have associated organic with a coloured and unrealistic sound. The sound of tubes or old radios or receivers, if you like. These sounds may be very pleasing and even romantic but they are not accurate, that's why I prefer solid state. However you listen to what you prefer whether it's a syrupy Chet Baker or electronic music. But please understand music can never sound organic, it's a word that you have been accustomed and conditioned to, but it really doesn't exist. Maybe consider harmonious, everything playing in harmony, although if harmony exists the opposite must exist too which is found in the anti harmonic compositions of Zappa, Floyd and many classical composers. What I'm trying to say is that "organic" cannot reproduce anti harmonic compositions, that's why we should strive for neutrality and accuracy. The 005 is not perfect but for $3k it comes pretty darn close. |
One important aspect of having separates for streaming, volume, etc.. is that you can buy these units in the used market. For example, one of my 3 Sonore OpticalRendu’s is used and was a significant cost savings. I also never liked the volume on a DAC, especially at low volume. My Benchmark LA4 preamp at $2500 (new) serves me perfectly for source input switching and volume. I am under $7K for my Musetec 005 system (volume, streaming, DAC). There is no other streaming component I would want nor preamp, at ANY price, I want to switch too.
|
Well, describing sound in words has always been difficult. Wise writers have given us some guidance from time to time. "Organic" and "musical" are too often used by audiophiles simply to mean, "it has a sound that I like." I have used "musical" at times, including in this thread, but I have given it a specific definition drawn from an old writing in UHF Magazine. I suspect that "organic" when it is not used simply to mean "I like it" may actually denote "yin" as popularized by the writings of Harry Pearson. But yin was regarded by HP as a coloration and not an asset. So too IMO expressions like it sounds more analogue, or more like tubes. We are left then with: it makes the music sound more like unamplified instruments in real space, or not. For the most part this limits the music to classical, most often performed without the benefit of microphones and loudspeakers. I was intrigued by your post suggesting jazz shows like that. Did I get that right? If so, kudos to them and to you. Around here that writing has been done best IMO by @dbb which is why his thread deserves a bump from time to time. |
@lordmelton Totally agree on preamp front, I'd still use separate pre if I owned Briscati. Analog volume function on B would only be of value if one was lacking good quality pre.
@lordmelton @charles1dad I generally stay away from the word organic in describing sound quality, but understand it's meaning when others use it. I generally use natural or use 'performers in room' to convey this attribute. As for the 005 specifically, I find @lordmelton description to be entirely correct in that it does have extreme level of resolution, transparency that exposes all of a recording. For me it fits the definition of 'performers in room', which also fits my definition of natural or organic. Now, if organic is to fit Charles defintion it may not conform to that level of naturalness. That level of natural may require a bit more warmth than 005 has to give, both @jjss49 and myself, and it seems @lordmelton all agree the 005 pretty dead neutral, JJSS having heard a bit more of this nature with Briscati, my present conclusions, and L admittance in prior post. Yes, the 005 moves me emotionally and has this organic nature, just may not fully flush it out vs. some other dacs. No dac can be perfect, which means playing off set of compromises, 005 set of compromises is nearly perfect for me, may not for another. I fully expect someday I'll be replacing 005 with another dac, don't know when, but I'm quite certain dacs will continue to evolve towards both higher resolution and more natural timbre/organic/natural sound.
@melm You are correct, we cannot know the quality of the built in streamer in B, but overall sound vs 005 can be determined. The issue for fair comparison is quality of the streamer used with 005, with so many variations available hard to compare fairly to any dac with built in streamer. We must take at face value the PARTICULAR comparisons available to us and make subjective evaluation. And this is where I'd balance the comparison in 005's favor. With non streaming dac we can pick and choose from myriad streaming choices, we have greater ability to flavor our sound in various ways. With presumed streaming innovations ahead of us we have opportunity for even greater performance in future. No doubt greater versatility with 005 vs Briscati, or any discrete streamer dac vs steaming dac. |
I suppose that there is a vernacular issue with the use and meaning of terms. To describe an audio component as organic is in my opinion perhaps the highest compliment that could be paid in reference to it sound quality and presentation. It’s my way of expressing the sound is utterly natural and the antithesis of artificial and contrived. So it seems the term may convey different meanings to different people, not an unusual occurrence. In the past seven or eight weeks I have attended 4 live performances involving acoustic instruments. A classical piano and cello recital and 3 jazz shows in small venues. Organic and utterly emotionally engaging aptly describe what I heard and “felt”. I definitely want every audio product I have in my system to be “organic”. Again for me, the highest of compliments and praise. Charles |
"Screaming deal"? Perhaps so, but not so fast, please. Yes the Bricasti has a built in streamer and an analog volume control. But are these appropriate to the fine quality of the DAC function on the unit? In the first place I’ve searched far and wide and cannot find a review or evaluation of the streamer function itself on the Bricasti M1se. The "se" denotes the streamer edition. Then, searching far and wide in this and other forums I find a general consensus that built in streamers on expensive DACs generally are usually judged to be inadequate compared to separates. I am making no judgment on the Bricasti streamer function. But I wonder, really, whether it proves itself satisfactory to audiophiles who are into 5 figure DACs. And I wonder if it would be satisfactory to @sns particularly. Now, someone may read this and tell us that the included streamer outperforms the Aires G2. One never knows for sure. Then perhaps: screaming deal. Like most things in digital audio, streamers are developing at a rapid pace, even faster than DACs. I agree that the addition of a built-in streamer might help a DAC’s sales, even for some who would use it to get started but with plans to upgrade. On the other hand there are now some very good inexpensive streamers available to get started with. (My first streamer with the 004 was my stock Oppo 105, and it was actually pretty good.) And when you upgrade they can be sold. The Bricasti M1 MDx without the streamer is $10,000. The streamer adds $1000. IIUC the knob on the Bricasti M1 is not a volume control, but it is on the M1se. A remote with volume and balance is available for the Bricasti for a steep upcharge. I have only been able to price it in sterling at 549 VAT incl. But again, if you’re running a 5 figure DAC will that be satisfactory? As @lordmelton writes, a preamp does a lot more than control volume and select inputs. None of the several reviewers of the M1 or M1se that I read has written of using the built-in volume control for their review. I do not mean by any of this to detract from the exceptional sound quality of the Bricasti DAC as reported here, and I accept that as a given. What remains, for me is only the question of value for $$. That’s what brought many of us here in the first place. |
@sns Yes, I agree that if someone is looking for an all in one box solution then the Bricasti is an option together with the Aurender A20, Mark Levinson, Mola Mola etc. But we all know that having at least a separate preamp will sound better. The 005 responds very well to high end preamps, which you would think the opposite would be true because high end preamps will reveal all the warts in downstream equipment. I have auditioned the 005 with some of the best SS preamps in the World, including my own SMC-VRE-1 (out of production), Vitus Audio SL-103 ($30k) and Viola Sonata ($40k). I have also auditioned among others Constellation, Simaudio and Solution but found the above preferable. The 005 was never found lacking in any respect which is usually the case with a lower quality product. It's definitely not "organic" or vinyl or tube like, it's real, warts and all. When did you ever come from a concert and say "Wow, that was really organic!", Never. Instead it will faithfully reproduce Jagger's Souf London accent and Karen Carpenter's Drawl. Plus razor sharp electric guitar and the greatest cymbal reproduction from ant DAC I've ever heard. Listen to Cream's Toad or some Hi-Rez Jazz. Getting back to the Bricasti, it's x8 oversampling which I believe will inhibit the use of HQ Player, which I understand to be the best CA program. Oversampling is not a purist audio feature either. Old school believes the original signal must remain so. Anyway many people will love the pseudo ML design and built by some ex ML employees, and of course it's American! |
@jjss49 Hope I understand correctly volume control is analog based with Briscati, reason I mentioned possible replacement of preamp, of course, only for single source, that being streaming with Briscati.
@dbb 005 certainly has advantage in that initial expenditure much less, one can upgrade streaming as funds allow.
The important thing here is 005 place in dac hierarchy becoming clearer over time. I seems we are not in fact delusional, imagining sound quality that hits far above it's weight vs far more expensive dacs. Its enlightening to see these comparisons as they give us greater insight into areas of possible deficiency and/or excellence. However one determines it's price/performance value, a larger sampling of users discovering it is one nice dac. |
I still think the 005 is a fabulous bargain even considering that streaming and preamp are not built in. I had a decent preamp already in the chain as do many others so no extra expense there. Thanks to your comments and those of others, I learned of the benefits of streaming after I bought the 005. Still, spending less than $1000 for the streamer, cables, and optical "filter" probably has gotten me most of the way. I guess my system would fall short short of the best SOTA setups out there. But I would also guess I have gotten 80 to 90 percent there for a small fraction of the cost of the best. |
@sns @charles1dad @melm it has been fun trying this one out, the piece is a really lovely effort, and for the money, just wonderful performance, and it does let you run straight into a power amp, albeit with a very slight perceived grain at higher attenuation settings to some of the points made -- i agree that imaging (or the illusion of soundstage with depth etc) is very much a function of recording quality and mixing, no doubt some recordings have it in spades while others are lacking in this department -- also agree streaming chain is super important which is why i waited and got a second opticalrendu so i could run 005 vs m1 via identical super clean usb feed, 100% apples to apples... i find that with better dacs like these, the sonic differences are subtle, how they are fed can affect how they sound -- i can’t comment on image height per se... with my maggies and how they stand and full height ribbon tweeter, they do that very well, ’life-sized’ so to speak, if there is a difference in this specific aspect between the 005 and the m1, i could not hear it in my room -- one can really only speculate on what drives certain sonic characteristic being heard differentially between units, obviously the produced sound is a result of everything all together, impossible to isolate specific elements (dual mono d/a or analog stages, power supply design, upsampling rates, chip vs r2r ladder and so on... certain dacs of course allow for some features like filtering, os/nos, etc to be toggled in/out, but some don’t) -- m1 se does not have separate analog inputs, it is functionally like the 005 in it can adjust it own output level - but you cannot port a separate analog source into it/through it (as the msb can...) |
