Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

@lordmelton  Really not comparing $11k to $3k here. Briscati or any other streaming dac may have better price/performance ratio than perceived at first glance. For instance, I have around $6k in streaming exclusive components, brings my actual cost of 005 up to around $9k in apples to apples Briscati comparison. Add in analog volume control which may be superior to lesser preamp and/or preclude the need to purchase one, in which case the Briscati could be seen as a screaming deal.

@jjss49 
That was a major effort and excellent writing.  I appreciate it, especially as your own system is definitely at the very high end and you were not, yourself, looking for a new DAC here.  In many ways the Musetec has been a mystery DAC with lots of favorable comments by owners, but without a comparative listening review from the usual commercial sources.  Together with @dbb  you have taken the mystery out of the DAC and placed it accurately among DACs I think.

A minor comment.  The bulk of my own listening is to classical music.  I find the front to back depth to vary very considerably from recording to recording, and especially from label to label.  Sometimes it appears quite true to life.  I am, though, happy to accept your observation that there may be an even a greater distinction as one goes up the DAC ladder.

@jjss49 

Thanks for reporting your comparison and doing the necessary work.

 You post is thorough and well done. It certainly helps answer the questions that 005 fans are so curious about: How good is this dac compared to the high priced ones.I look forward to future installments. Again, thanks.

Forgot to add one point.

Ok,  being mindful of the increased analog like presentation I'm getting via continual streaming upgrades. The difference between Briscati and 005 could be due to SOLELY due to streaming chain differences. I'd expect Briscati streaming chain optimized as streamer integrated, so presume maximum optimization and voicing as integrated unit. 005 subject to far greater stream chain variability, The results could be as much about differences in  @jjss49  streaming chain vs. dacs as stand alone devices.

Keep in mind I also hear a slightly digital signature with 005, so it may be inherent to the unit.

@jjss49  Very nice comparison and interpretations!

While I don't have the experience of your comparison, I pretty much agree with your evaluation of 005. I certainly hear the relative forward sound stage, and that has always stayed consistent over many changes. The greatest depth increase was when I upgraded Coincident Statement linestage to MKII status and Amtrans dual selector switches. This is only upgrade that provided more depth, and that not dramatic increase, although easily noticeable. Based on my experience I'd believe depth could be improved on. Still don't recall, depth being any less vs Auralic Vega, LKS 004, Okto Dac8 which were all in house simultaneously.

I've never sensed a closed in sound to 005, but then I've not heard your particular comparison. Compared to same dacs above never noticed this. I can understand how relative lack of depth could be perceived as sounding closed in, although I hear fine sense of height in my system, very close to lifelike size images, voices generally at about 4' 6" H, this probably helps to provide a less closed in sound, I also use diffusers centered behind speakers so not too finely image outlines. I've found a large speaker like my Klipschorns help greatly in providing more life size images, Maggies do same. I'm also quite sure horns and the particular mods I've done to my Klipschorns (Volti mid horns and tweeters on dedicated baffle) are providing maximum openness.

I too agree that small increments of volume attenuation MAY not do harm to sound quality due to bit stripping. I constantly use 005 as fine volume control due to my Coincident having dual non remote volume selectors, not getting up and down constantly from listening chair for fine volume changes. The thing is I can never be sure on this front, generally our perceptions of sound change as volume changes, louder sounds better up to a point. I can only say splitting fine hairs here.

So, that leaves the other liability you heard vs Briscati, namely the slight digital signature of 005. This is the single aspect of 005 I've yet to come to final conclusion on. When first inserting 005 I found it pretty much dead neutral, over time and many incremental and more substantial upgrades I sometimes heard slight slides to analytical side. Finally came to end of nearly every single upgrade to system, so system static over perhaps last  75 hours or so, everything burned in and I'm adjusted to static state of system. So, over all these hours I've experienced far greater sense of analog sound previous to ANY digital I've heard previously (agree with slow filter vs fast).  Still, I do hear a slightest hint of what may be digital signature coming through on certain recordings, audiophile recordings have great sense of organic, natural sound, its with the lesser recordings I hear this sense. I'd likely not notice this without comparisons provided by my present vinyl setup and aural memory of multi 100K vinyl setups, so slight but its there. The question I'm still answering is this signature due to dac or rest of streaming setup. Your comparison to Briscati forces me to assign more blame to 005 vs the streaming setup. Now, I will say, my long evolving and continuing streaming upgrades have been helping greatly in providing more analog like sound, especially adding the OpticalRendu vs SOTM SMS200Neo. LPS, best power cords on every steaming component, all going through power conditioner, FMC PRIOR to server, all these upgrades have helped greatly here. And more streaming upgrades on way, so presume even greater analog signature coming.

Still, the question remains, all things being equal, is 005 the last word in providing sense of analog like sound, the ease and sense of luxury of analog at it's best? Comparison to Briscati makes it seem not. Generally, its thought jitter responsible for the digital sound signature, it could also be something inherent to Sabre chip, or something else? I'd agree this signature very subtle with 005, almost a non-factor, even with the admittance it exists for me. As I stated previously, only hear this with lesser recordings, and still easy to hear past as the holistic system presentation is entirely life like, performers in room experience. It seems many criticize lesser recordings far more than I, my listening sessions four to six hours with no fatigue, only tiring for bed time. Overall, I'd continue to judge 005 as natural, high resolving dac, this extremely small deviation from optimum not a serious liability. I'd also say I'm not at an end with possible improvements here, more streaming upgrades on the way, I fully expect greater analog, less digital presentation in future.

@jjss49

Thank you for taking the time to do all of this comparative listening and then providing your impressions here. The big take away for me is how very close the sound quality is between these 2 DACS. It seems to me one has to resort to near nit picking and splitting hairs to find meaningful sonic differences between the two high-performing DACs.

Quite a compliment toward the 005 when one considers the Bricasti M1 SE is just over 3x the cost. And I know from personal listening experience how good the Bricasti is. Based on your comments the 005 acquitted itself exceedingly well in an overall top to bottom sense.

Your assessment certainly supports what other in this thread have favorably reported.

Charles

Well the Bricasti is $10K, 11K with network card vs $3K for the 005. The Bricasti also has a built in preamp, how was that issue handled during the test? I don't believe it's possible to bypass the preamp or feed the 005 into the Bricasti preamp?

I guess the main strength of the Bricasti is that it's dual mono but bear in mind it would be very interesting to run two 005s in dual mono for $6K. I will try this with my dealer's unit.

interim report on my experience with the 005 - i am not done with the overall dac comparisons but think i have a reasonable fix on the 005’s sound, strengths and weaknesses, and have one comparison completed

i have spent the last week comparing it to a bricasti m1se (w mdx upgrade and lan input card) which i also bought to try, they arrived the same week ... took me a while to sort through which filter i like on the m1 (min phase 0) and then i started comparing to the 005

005 strengths (quite manifold) - detailed, transparent yet full sound, excellent rhythm n pace, jet black background, very nice tone/timbre, quite refined with no detectable grain in the treble or midrange, outstanding sibilance control, solid bass foundation and a dose of midrange/midbass ’fattening’ which i think is quite desirable

005 weaknesses (few and relatively minor) - a) onboard volume attenuation does degrade the sound noticeably (say to -20 db or more, small decrements are quite ok i think), so it is best used at full output, b) the unit, while having nice treble energy and resolution, sounds a little closed in on top (lacks a sense of ’air’ or openess), which affects the quality of its imaging, particularly perceived soundstage depth

compared to the bricasti:

1) 005 full output volume is slightly higher than the m1 despite identical stated nominal voltage ratings, so i reduced 005 output -1 db to equilibrate - listened to both rca and xlr outs, sonic impressions are consistent - ran 005 using usb in, vs m1 via lan in (which is supposed to be its best input), then used usb in on m1 also, sonic impressions unchanged

2) two main areas where i preferred the bricasti - these are subtle but obvious and reproduceable on my system on different days so i trust them as solid findings

-- the 005 presents the music more upfront, with a wide but not deep soundstage... voices/lead instruments are at the speaker plane or slightly forward, and there is a more closed in, closer-in quality to the sound, whereas the m1 portrays more at the speaker plane or slightly behind, but the soundstage extends significantly behind from there, significantly greater depth of stage with specific instruments and voices more layered longitudinally

-- while tonally not different (comparable treble/mids/bass proportionality) the m1se has a greater sense of ease and fluidity and flow whereas the 005 has a slightly (emphasize slightly) more ’uptight’, robotic/digital nature vs the m1se having more of an ’analog’ or organic feel for the lack of an even better term, decay of notes and ’atmospherics’ are better on the m1 - i can only speculate why this is... perhaps because the bricasti does onboard upsampling like the chord stack and the 005 doesn’t into its ess converters... i dunno

-- these two points are noticeable in direct comparison -- but listened to on its own, i would not say that the 005 seems closed in or robotic in the least... such is the benefit (or curse) of hearing a better piece of equipment in direct comparison on an otherwise quite resolving rig

you can check out my system... i used the maggie 3.7i’s w fuse bypass and magna risers, driven by pass int150, also tried a well modded musical fidelity a308, then an oldie carver lightstar direct ref passive xlr linestage into a smc modded mccormack dna125 power amp - digital front end is roon run on an elberoth i7 core machine, uptone etherregen and aqvox switch, feeding sonore optical rendus as roon endpoints with usb out

in summary (for now) i would say that the 005 is a really excellent dac, in the $2500-3000 price tier really really good, (i did not have the dena venus in tow anymore, but by memory i feel the 005 is more refined more organic, the venus was brighter iirc) -- the 005 comes within a sniff of stuff that is much much more expensive - the sound is superb: warm, full bodied yet nicely detailed, great speed and slam, built like a tank, and outperformed by the high dollar stuff in quite slight and subtle ways - as mentioned earlier it is best used in fixed output mode, with slow filter - it sounded more organic to me than the fast one

@melm yes, I completely understand. I read through their website about it but honestly this type of architecture is nothing new - many many have implemented separating out the digital and analog completely over the years. Playback Design MPD8 has, if I am not mistaken, 6 independent psu powering different sections of the DAC. Designers have gone crazy.

I find 005’s implementation, whatever that is, very thorough with excellent and careful choice of parts (which can only be done by listening) without going overboard and for a second I don’t feel that I need to use other interface (like I2S) to make it sound better which for other DACs I felt it needed. The more I hear the 005, the more I am impressed. Its pretty clear that this DAC is tuned by ear (and I can now see why ASR’s measurements turned out to be horrible, needless to say it being misleading).

@debjit_g 

What matters is the clocks, power supply feeding it and isolation. With an external DDC, you bypass the additional processing inside and go almost directly to ESS. The theory is this additional processing can put strain and induce noise/jitter on the chip.

In the Musetec, the ESS chips, together with its regulating clock, are on the analog board  That board is powered by an elaborate LPS headed by the silver plated O-Ring transformer.  That LPS powers nothing else in the DAC.  The Amanero Board, together with its own 3 clocks are on a separate board.  That board is powered by an entirely independent power supply at the head of which is a second transformer, a toroidal, feeding into a bank of super capacitors that act as batteries.  That PS powers nothing on the analog board.  This goes about as far to insulate the ESSs and their own clock from any strain, noise or jitter from the USB input circuit as I can imagine.

Nevertheless, anything is possible in audio and there are rarely any hard and fast rules. So people are feeling the desire to experiment and we'll all be the better for their findings.

The Amanero board within the Musetec does the conversion from USB to I2S just like the external boards. It does that with an excellent power supply using super-capacitors, and clocks...

Yes, all USB boards, Amanero or XMOS or JLSounds does this as this is the only way to talk to the ESS. In other words, its a small DDC inside. What matters is the clocks, power supply feeding it and isolation. With an external DDC, you bypass the additional processing inside and go almost directly to ESS. The theory is this additional processing can put strain and induce noise/jitter on the chip. Even MSB has an external ProISL interface which converts USB to Optical. I strongly believe that DAC manufacturers should take all these into account when designing a DAC of great quality. Though USB was not meant for Audio interface, there is nothing wrong when designed right.

yes, you would be surprised what a great front end can do to a DAC. Many times we change DAC thinking that it will bring better sound and more than often its the source that limiting the DAC from performing to its full potential.

I totally agree.

The only reason I go off on tangents with this thread is because of the great potential of 005. In the context of streaming, full potential of 005 requires totally optimized streaming chain. With dacs used for streaming I perceive dacs as only parts of a whole, analogous to amp/speaker integration.

@sns  I am talking about the power supply feeding the PF/Jcat usb/I2S card. The network card (I use Jcat net Xe as well) is equally important. The ATX power supply is a whole different ball game and that power supply is as much critical in the equation. My server is a 3 box solution and I have invested a lot across all these power supplies alone. I don’t want to deter too much with server discussions in this thread but from experience what I can tell is the quality of power supplies rules the digital world.

@debjit_g  I believe you're talking about atx board power supplies when you mention cost of ps for pf or jcat boards, Certainly these are pricey, JCAT Optimo would likely be my choice at around $5300. But the lps for individual boards can  vary greatly in price, can probably range from $100 to $1k or more for best.

@debjit_g Very interesting. Assuming you have atx board, why don't you try Pink Faun I2S board to compare with Jcat usb?
 

if I (or anyone) want to try a Pink Faun, you need to try the one with ultra OCXO clocks, otherwise a Jcat is far better sounding at much lower price point. The ultra ocxo is also very expensive and at almost 1600 eur, cost half of what 005 does. The PF I2S is also limited in bandwidth I think (or at least when I looked at getting one couple of yrs back). I would probably get the PF USB if I get one at all but the key is whatever you get, you need to feed it with the best regulated power supply you can and sometimes they can cost more than what the card does.

I'm extremely leery about clocks after experience with the audiophile switch with OXCO clock, excessively precise sound staging and imaging, the very things clocks are supposed to improve. I assume my clocking is sufficient at the moment what with clocks in OpticalRendu and 005 usb board.

At this point, reducing noise is where my focus is, you'd think the better clock in audiophile switch I tried vs generic crap one in my router would have reduced jitter, resulting in better sound staging. My unique setup, no server rendering with server ethernet direct into streamer may have bearing on this.

I also have issue with external master clocks connected by cable. Ed Meitner of EMM fame claims its a joke, states all clocking should be done internally, closest to components, circuits it controls. IOW, all discrete clocking. I also understand the argument that a master clock ties everything together, still not sure how that works when you still have all these discrete clocks within the individual components.

I still see the Pink Faun, JCAT cards with atx boards as probable ultimate renderers. These board have great on board power supplies you connect to external lps, great clocks, optimized rendering with direct connection to dac, The best of these cards are likely superior to any external streamer at any price. .And with no need for separate streamers and attendant cabling,  RFI  rejection is theoretically superior.

The other great thing about an atx build is the versatility. You have choice of highest quality rendering via usb, I2S, spdif cards, and highest quality network porting via optimized ethernet or optical card. One can have it all in one single server. Between Pink Faun and JCAT you have two companies that understand streaming perhaps better than any other.

This damn dac just wants to lead me down this path where everything feeding it needs to be SOTA.

Yes it will and it can, with ease. I am currently testing a SOtM USB Ultra with the 005.

However to get the most out of digital you need a master clock, I believe that's what you're missing.

@debjit_g Very interesting. Assuming you have atx board, why don't you try Pink Faun I2S board to compare with Jcat usb?

Having mentioned many times throughout this thread my curiosity and assumption atx board servers may be SOTA, perhaps I should mention I do in fact have relatively high end diy custom atx motherboard computer in house. I built this five or six years ago, relatively high level AMD processor, liquid cooling, gamer motherboard, high end graphics, improved motherboard audio all in giant case. This was real exercise in excess, built for the fun of it. I've thought about converting to music server only duty from time to time, but power supply mods ($2-5K), cards themselves (each one $400-2.5K) and time and effort to install hardware, optimize software, OS may not be worth it for build that started as general service computer. The AMD processor may be overkill, no dsp for me, and faster processors make more noise, liquid cooling inferior to passive air for audio duty because of noise and power supply demands,  also, the motherboard isn't inherently best for music server duty. So, bottom line, I'd be able to try great rendering with Pink Faun and JCAT cards, but within context of less than SOTA atx build.

Hearing your less than satisfactory results using external DDC kind of confirms my  presumption Singxer SU6 would be inferior to my usb setup. This was initially confirmed to some extent by observation of some modifying the SU6 with external power supplies, this despite having supercap PS which Alan at Vinshine claimed didn't benefit from lps. I also saw further mods to, can't recall if it was voltage regulator, caps? All this confirmed inherent issues with even higher grade DDC, they need to be top grade to optimize I2S.

@melm I totally agree with you, between the engineering of that board, and sound quality, both initially, and continuing, I should have absolutely no motivation to even try the I2S scheme. But then would I really be an audiophile if I wasn't at least curious! And this the reason for all my atx server curiosity.

I suppose all my streaming upgrade plans are based on wanting to hear full resolving capabilities of 005. This damn dac just wants to lead me down this path where everything feeding it needs to be SOTA. I've never had a source like this prior to 005, prior vinyl and digital source resolving limitations have been exposed for perhaps last ten years or so by the rest of my system or systems.

I’ve written this before, but it’s worth repeating as Audiogon does not have a search within thread function. The Amanero board within the Musetec does the conversion from USB to I2S just like the external boards. It does that with an excellent power supply using super-capacitors, and clocks which probably outperform those on external DDCs. And without any cable carrying the I2S signals.  Some here think that function can be better performed by an external DDC. Some think it cannot.

I have a Matrix Audio X-SPDIF2 DDC that I had bought a long while for the PS Audio DS DAC. Tried briefly to feed 005 with an Audioquest I2S hdmi and compare with the USB - needless to say it was a big step down. So just moving to I2S doesn't necessarily provides an automatic sound improvement even though I2S is a native interface to the DAC chip. So its only relative to what you are using which is USB in my case.

However, the LKS DDC gets a high praise here. Its cheap enough to try one and I might get to it at some point if I am motivated enough but I will need to build another power supply which has to be equivalent or better than the one powering the JCAT USB. I think I might have hit the ceiling with 005 in terms of feeding it with clean and jitter free signal. The only way I can think of improving the sound quality further with 005 is by improving my diy server. I have few ideas which I will try over time but so far I am enjoying.

I have the 005 for couple of weeks now and it sounds very good to me. I will say that at this price point, it surprised me and concur with what has been already said about this DAC. I am enjoying it as much.

The way the USB sounds, I don't have much desire to move to I2S - my server side USB is very optimized with JCAT USB XE feed with some very exotic power supplies. I am currently trying out few USB cables though that I already have at hand (Network Acoustics, Westminster, Sablon) to see which one has better synergy with the server and 005 - they all sound fabulous in general.

@lordmelton  and others using I2S rather than usb. I continue to be intrigued with I2S only because possible theoretical advantages vs usb, this being I2S being native protocol for dacs.

I've been searching for servers with I2S, virtually non-existent, motherboards don't have it natively, only diy solutions. One could do atx board build and use Pink Faun I2S HDMI board, bet that's very nice, but requires diy or custom build by another.

So most are limited to DDC/streamer conversion, usb still in chain from server to ddc/streamer, thus, not true pure I2S connection from server processor to dac. Also, streamers with I2S out very limited choices, since streamers critical to sound quality, limited availability may mean these streamers not be up to the best quality usb streamers with their much greater availability and variability.  Also, no standardization of pin outs on I2S, so dip switches required for proper orientation, presume dip switches have some negative impact on sound quality. This possible downside could be alleviated with custom built I2S cable, so good there. The final possible downside is I2S clocking within dacs. Since its native protocol, perhaps no extra clocking needed, as used on good usb boards within dacs?

As some of you know, I had Singxer SU6, never tried, lack of motivation due to great usb sound quality, also considered some of the technical issues listed above, and others specific to my setup to be theoretical disadvantages vs usb.

So my issues with I2S in general, assuming there are in fact theoretical advantages for dacs with I2S inputs. One is no pure I2S available server to dac. Two, no standardization of !2S pin outs or connector type.  

Seems to me dac manufacturers should state which input best, I suspect they put greatest engineering efforts towards usb because its input they use in voicing dacs, I2s if included, only for convenience. If they also voiced with I2S, they should state whether superior or not. On the server end of things, manufacturers should devise a method for I2S rendering if there is understanding I2S superior to usb or spdif. Pink Faun manufactures what is likely the best I2S streamer/renderer available, but this is expansion card for atx motherboard only, Baetis only off the shelf atx I'm aware of, otherwise custom build.

I don't understand why rendering has to be so secretive, complicated and as yet, objectively optimized. We need dac and server manufacturers working together in optimizing streaming chains, until then we have to guess or rely on the rare direct equalized comparison, difficult to do. I'd love to do an atx/Pink Faun I2S comp to my present usb, would be nice to know 005 preferred port.

@lordmelton  @daci

Or if you want electric bass sounding real as it might in a medium size venue, Steve Lucas in "One Witness" on Ray Montford’s "Shed Your Skin."

I think I've previously seen it. I'm really done with usb rendering upgrades at this point, OpticalRendu sound quality so amazing, no thought to any more upgrades here. I'd suggest you try the OR so we have comp to an optimized I2S setup.

@sns Have you ever considered this?

https://intona.eu/en/products/7055-b

Melm have a listen to the bass on "The Fish" from the YES, Fragile album.

@klh007 

In relation to volume control methods, the Leedh software solution has amazed the reviewers who can't believe it is more transparent than hardware solutions, Lumin is one company using Leedh.

I've heard the Leedh volume control extensively on Lumins and while it is probably the best non-preamplifier solution, it cannot compete with a reference pre-amp.

I know they cost ridiculous money but there are reasons for it.

@daci 
As I don't play much rock I probably can't answer directly.  But the bass of the Musetec goes very low and is clean and clear.  Low enough to easily provide organ notes you can feel as well as hear.

Some of the best illustrations of the clean and clear bass  I am getting are found in double bass solos that I admire.  Examples are the playing of Ron Carter on Chesky JD376 "We'll Be Together Again" and David Holland on Flying Fish HDS 70701 (Untitled).  I've never before heard anything like it from digital.  The extent to which the Musetec "slams" for you (and for me) probably depends upon your sub-woofer.  The DAC will definitely supply what is necessary.  However some widely distributed sub-woofers don't go as low as you might imagine.  Before investing in a sub go over the specs carefully.  I use Rythmik.

@klh007

He was quite happy with the Bricasti (Which had replaced his previous Aesthetix Pandora DAC). I thought that the M1SE was very good. He replaced it with the MSB Select DAC. As far as I know he had no reliability or customer service issues with his Bricasti. He did not use Bricasti directly connected to the power amplifier. There was always an active preamplifier in the signal chain.

Charles

@charles1dad, How did your friend's Bricasti M1 SE DAC hold up over the years against the competition? Bricasti uses a rarely used DAC chip yet gets great results.

In relation to volume control methods, the Leedh software solution has amazed the reviewers who can't believe it is more transparent than hardware solutions, Lumin is one company using Leedh.

And for those wondering about dsp volume control via software like Roon. It sucks compared to any of the three volume schemes listed above.

Very nice, optimizing everything and ensuring level playing field is critical in comparative evaluations

I use Coincident Statement linestage with 005, dual manual volume control via transformer (TVC). So, in order to not have to get up constantly and make fine volume adjustments via dual manual control I set Coincident volume at a level where I can make those fine volume adjustments via 005. I detect no bit loss, sound deterioration as long as I stay in upper 90% of full volume, ie. no more than -10db on 005.

No bit loss volume control is a limitation of 005 vs dacs like Aqua and Playback Design dacs with analog volume control or real linestage. Therefore, preamp/passive volume control can be considered critical and integral to fulfilling it's full potential. When considering this dac, one really needs to budget for high end volume control, perhaps then not exactly the price/performance game changer some may perceive it as. I've used 005 with a Musical Fidelity M2si integrated and Schitt Saga + passive and not quite the same amazing piece it is with Coincident linestage with all upgrades and mods I've done to it.

@jjss49 

at the same time, i also got a bricasti m1se in as well, and if you know that unit, there is a bewildering # of filters to choose from... so that is taking a good bit of time to sort through for which i prefer... ugh, too much choice is a ’hardship’ 😅

A friend of mine had the Bricasti M1 SE DAC for about 4- 5 years and I've heard it multiple times in extended listening sessions. Spot on with regard to numerous filter choice/settings. I have no doubt that you'll get it sorted out.

Charles

@sns

imma gonna need some time to do some proper comparison listening... this is complicated by three factors -

1) so far i have found that there is some subtle deterioration of the sound of the 005 from using the volume attentuation feature, so need to run it at full volume for comparison purposes - thus need to use an integrated amp/passive pre to control volume of all dacs being compared

2) as the 005 doesn’t have a streaming function using ethernet feed, i am getting a second optical rendu so i can run two optically cleansed usb feeds into the various dacs so i am running apples to apples

3) at the same time, i also got a bricasti m1se in as well, and if you know that unit, there is a bewildering # of filters to choose from... so that is taking a good bit of time to sort through for which i prefer... ugh, too much choice is a ’hardship’ 😅

@jjss49  That's impressive considering your chord stack, msb, Weiss. Obviously you hear 005 as I hear it, yet to find a single sin of commission. It's all balanced in a very nice way, can't think of a single thing I'd change. As more comparisons against much higher price dacs comes out, I only become more convinced any possible dac change/upgrade is of little concern. I continue with constant small changes/upgrades to streaming setup, greater resolving capabilities of system only make 005 shine all the more, not a single ugly has been exposed!

@daci  005 excels in all parameters, everything in balance. My system can hit very hard what with 104db, 15" woofer modified Klipschorns and 005, far better than previous Auralic Vega which was pretty stout in this area. Vega bass rounder, more resonant, which made it sound more bass heavy than 005. 005 has natural hard hitting, articulate bass in my setup, absolutely no complaints

@daci The Gustard X26 Pro is warmer and not as detailed as the 005. I really like the Gustard and only sold it to fund the 005 purchase. If you have some bright speakers, then the Gustard could be a better choice over the 005. 

I have read all the post here about Musetec 005,but not much about its bass

can it slam hard in the bass like a TAD dac or Mola Tambaqui they are very dynamic and hard hitting like nothing  else ive heard

also very curios about the new Gustard dac R26 compare to Musetec 

Clear Components, the Musetec distributer in Germany, is currently advertising it at 2999 Euros, VAT included. At the current favorable exchange rate that’s $3135. The VAT in Germany, though, is 19%. The net price therefore could be very favorable, though shipping out of the EU is not included. There's a voltage switch inside the cabinet.

@jjss49 Very well said. 

i have not heard an 004 but in my time so far with the 005 i would say it has as much detail as any dac i have heard...others may emphasize treble more, put info more upfront, but that isn’t more detail...

what is nice about the 005 to my ear is that there is excellent detail retrieval but it is quite refined, and also, there is a fairly rich midband/midbass foundation on which the detail rests, so it doesn’t sound overly hifi, the overall presentation quite natural, treble micro details are presented in a nice holistic context, sort of what the denafrips pontus does as well, although in a less refined, more grainy resolution kind of way...

@erniejade This first thing you will realise is the huge soundstage, the 005 projects a much bigger soundstage than many much more expensive DACs.

Expect a 6-8 week burn-in.

The 005 IMO is uncoloured and transparent so if your system is warm or cold it will reveal those characteristics. For example you use WW cables, they are very revealing, not wrong but revealing.

I wholeheartedly recommend the 005 and many will tell you in this thread the 005 never gets shown up by putting it with expensive components and cables.

It just ups it's game and stays the course.

Details galore on the 005. I find it a tiny bit warm and definitely not fatiguing. For the cost, it is hard for me to find any faults with the unit. I wish it was not so large, but it likely sounds so good because it is rather large and heavy.

Very late to the thread and I have questions. 

I am considering getting the 005. I have had the Lks 004 in the past and while it was resolving, I found it a bit fatiguing.  Currently using a Boarder Patrol se-i.   Now the Boarder Patrol se-i has more bloom and 0 fatigue but, it doesn't have the resolution as the 004 did. Does the 005 fit the bill for something that's in-between? The bloom and oomph of the Boarder Patrol with the resolution of the 004? 

Rest of the system is Innuos zen mk3, Wireworld Platinum usb, TAudioquest Thunderbird Zero RCA, T+A integrated amp, Wireworld Eclipse Silver 8 speaker cables into Tyler Acoustic Highland H2 speakers. I am also running an EtherREGEN  on the Ethernet side into the Innuos.  

Thanks all for the help and suggestions.   

(26) ABA Clips: Why you need a DDC - YouTube

The above was a really good technical description of a lot of the streaming terms that are tossed around. Galvanic Isolation, I2S, et al.

***********************************

APOS price matched the Shenzhen sale price for the Topping D90LE DAC I got yesterday. Loved the DAC with my not so amazing Schitt Jotunheim R headphone amp. I think the EtherRegen to OpticalRendu streaming has something to do with the great listening experience with the brand new RAA: CA-1a headphones.

Just a note that Shenzhen is currently in the midst of its semi-annaul sale with a price reduction on the Musetec.

And while I'm at it, for our British friends, there's a used Musetec for sale on the UKAudiomart.

@boxer12

Fantastic Tim!! 👍🏼

@bkeske - Thanks so much Brian! Updated the zen firmware per your advice & now have Roon running through USB. Sounds fantastic! 

dbb, interesting.  Perhaps try a usb cable.  

@boxer12

I So I changed to the "all in one" setting on the ifi streamer & am now able to stream via UBS & Tidal. Still can’t figure out Roon & UBS so I am running that via RCA for now. Thanks for the suggestion!

Very strange Tim. Have you updated the Zen Stream firmware via the app? iFi was working on their full Roon integration *after* the Zen Stream was released IIRC, so perhaps checking if an update is available may help. Seems to me it has to be something about the Zen Stream and Roon working together….but why it works with a digital cable but not the USB is strange. One thing you know is the DAC and Zen Stream can ‘communicate’ via USB using Tidal, correct? So why not with Roon? As I say, I don’t use Roon, so cannot provide any experience with that in the chain.

It has to be something simple.