2. digital
  3. 169851-70445

Review: Holo May (L2) DAC and the Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 DAC Compaired



Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 DAC and the Holo May (L2) DAC Compared

A comparison of these two DACs is something I wanted to do for months given the numerous stellar reviews of the May and the widely unknown, but highly praised, 005. Those of us who own the 005 believe it is an undiscovered gem. I bought the 005 initially because it was cheaper (approximately 3K) and because of the wonderful experience I had with it’s predecessor, the 004. After hearing and greatly enjoying the 005, I found it hard to believe any DAC could be significantly better. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me and I had to find out. There were no comparative reviews. After selling some equipment that I wasn’t using for a few thousand dollars, I coughed up the 5K to buy it, thinking I could always sell it if I didn’t love it more than the 005.

After about approximately 500 hours of break in, as recommended by the manufacturer, the May was ready to compare with the 005.

First, before I begin, the reader should know my perspective and preferences. I started out in my teens and early 20s, during the 60s and early 70s, as mostly a rock and roll fan with some rhythm and blues and folk music thrown in. Around 1971 I found a lack of good new rock music (the Beatles broke up, the Stones became inactive, and Dylan had a motorcycle accident). So I tried some classical. At first I found it boring but very gradually over the years I became addicted. When I moved to Manhattan, I went to classical music concerts frequently and eventually subscribed to the New York Philharmonic. I continued my subscription for over 20 years. In addition to orchestral music I attended chamber concerts and some opera.

My perspective favors live natural acoustic music, though I still love classic rock and oldies. To me the preferred audio sound is one that feels like a real event, a live, in the room, palpable presence. Natural resolution and detail is essential. (In physics lingo, my goal is to hear all the overtones, on top of the fundamental sine wave, which define the timbre of a real world instrument or voice.) I seek a sound that is accurate and clear, but slightly warm, conveying rich but realistic lower mid-range and upper bass much like what you would hear in Carnegie Hall or Symphony Hall in Boston.

Many music lovers are not into classical so the music referred to below may be unfamiliar. Nevertheless, the conclusions I’ve made as to sound should have relevance to all genres.

Preliminaries

I fed both dacs via computers (an Asus mini and an Asus laptop) because I had two. Thus I could do quick comparisons by preamp input switching. I recently bought an Ifi Zen Stream network bridge/streamer which, after some frustration, I hooked up via ethernet cable. Since I only had one I could not use it to do quick comparisons between the two DACs.

For the record, the 005 fed by the Zen Stream via usb did improve the sound by lifting a slight veil of haze, which you might not know was present until it was removed. With the May a slight improvement might have also occurred, but the effect was less clear to me, because I didn’t have time to do much listening with and without the network bridge.

Both DACs were played through a Hegel P30 preamp to a McIntosh MC402 amp, then to Kef Reference 1 speakers and two SVS sb-3000 subwoofers crossed over at 46hz.

Method

I began with critical listening focused on sound quality using a/b switching. Generally, I would listen for about a minute or less to one then switch to the other to hear the same passage.

I will report in the future on longer term impressions after living with these DACs for a few weeks.

I started with the following music tracks. I chose them to facilitate focusing on certain sonic elements listed in parenthesis below:

1. Solo piano: Beethoven Appassionata (transient attack and decay, timbre/overtones, micro detail, clarity)
2. Violin Sonata: No 1 Prokofiev (timbre/overtones)
3. Piano trio: Beethoven “Ghost” (imaging)
4. An aria from an Oratorio by Handel entitled Theodora (imaging, female voice, hall ambiance)
5. Large orchestra, soloists, chorus, and massed strings. Mahler Symphony no. 2, final movement. (congestion, hall ambience and depth, width, and imaging)
6. Light My Fire, Doors (energy, rhythm, male voice)
7. Sunshine of My Love, The Cream (drums, energy, rhythm, male voice)

Round 1
The Solo piano test. I choose Beethoven’s Appassionata played by Arthur Rubinstein. I think a solo piano reveals transient speed, attack (leading edge of the note), and decay like no other instrument.

It was almost a tie in these sonic qualities. Both were excellent. The 005 to my ear had slightly better definition and decay. The May had a slightly richer bass tone and was solid and very pleasing. The 005 was leaner but had more sparkle, capturing all the natural overtones on higher notes.

Round 2
Violin Sonata: No 1 Prokofiev performed by Vicktoria Mullova.

The results were similar to the piano test. The 005 clearly had better reproduction of the natural overtones of the violin. The May was bassier, with the music emerging from a blacker background.

Round 3
Beethoven’s “Ghost” Trio for piano violin and cello performed by Istomin, Stern, and Rose.

Imaging was about equal with each instrument appearing in space laterally where it should. The 005 placed the instruments more forward as if your were seated closer to the stage. The blacker background of the May made the separation of the instruments clearer, but the warmth made the musicians seem more recessed, as if your seat was well behind the 005 “seat”. The May sounded slightly soft but was solid, beautiful, and addictive, if not completely convincing on vivid violin timbre.

Round 4

Next, I played an aria from Handel’s Theodora, sung by the late and brilliant mezzo soprano Loraine Hunt Lieberson. It consists of the vocalist supported by a cello and harpsichord (basso continuo). I chose this because the recording contains only two instruments and a singer. It thus presents a good opportunity to clearly hear imaging and hall ambiance in addition to providing a well defined lower midrange and bass line, and a beautiful female voice.

Both the May and the 005 sounded completely convincing and beautiful, especially in realistic tonal balance, including rich bass and a clear cello, harpsichord, and voice. The sound field width had the same realism in both. Loraine’s voice image was more natural in space, clearer, with a touch more air on the 005. The May had a bit less clarity, as it sounded further away, but was a tad smoother in texture.

Round 5
Mahler Symphony no. 2, final movement. Bruno Walter, the New York Philharmonic. A large orchestra and chorus with soloists is a good test of dynamics, detail, sound stage/ability to retrieve hall ambiance, clarity, and imaging.

The two DACs were equal in dynamics but the 005 was superior in every other way. The 005 picked up more air in the hall, exhibited no congestion between instruments, produced a deeper more natural sound stage, not by virtue of more bass, but more air or hall ambiance. In this case better hall ambiance produced more vivid imaging. The 005 was vivid and conveyed more emotion. Chorus voices were not as distinct in the May. Vocal soloists were clearer in the Musetec.

Round 6
Light My Fire, Doors (energy, rhythm, male voice)
Very close in all aspects. The 005 seemed to articulate higher frequencies better and thus had appropriate edginess.

Round 7
Sunshine of My love, The Cream (Drums, energy, rhythm, male voice)
Again, very close in all aspects. I can’t tell the difference.

Conclusion
First and foremost these DACs were both excellent in every category. At times during the A/B listening I could not tell them apart. To be sure, they are different, but if a listener familiar with the sound of both walked into a room without knowing which DAC was playing, it would not be surprising if he or she guessed wrong. The take-away is, in my opinion, they are both in the same class. The point of this exercise though is primarily to determine their differences.

As I said earlier, the live realistic character of the sound wave comes, in large part, from capturing all the overtones. This gives accurate timbre and detail. The 005 has more than the May. Another component of realism, in my opinion, is solidity of texture and prominence of the sound emerging from the background (black or zero background noise). The May has more of this.

In fact, the May’s blacker background is like nothing I’ve ever heard. It has an uncanny realism, solidity, and ease. It sounds like the very best vinyl. Smooth always listenable and engaging. Overall it is sweeter and softer than the Musetec. Probably even more so than actual live music. I call this natural texture, for lack of a better term.

In sum: sound texture May wins; Realistic space, detail, micro dynamics, and high frequency energy, the 005 wins. Clearly the Musetec works best if listening to a large orchestra where details, hall ambience, and clarity (lack of congestion) are priorities.

If the price were the same then take your pick, they are in the same class. Choose the May if you like two teaspoons of sugar and a little extra cream in your half caf coffee, the 005 if you like your coffee “regular”, as New Yorkers say. But for a $2K difference in price the 005 wins. Even if you lean toward the analog sound of the May you can take the $2,000 saved to tweak the 005 to sound more like the May by adding a nice tube preamp or warmer/smoother sounding cables. If you outright prefer the 005, you have an extra $2,000 in your pocket.
dbb

Showing 20 responses by melm

melm
1,057 posts
 

@alexopth1512

When something measures "well" and sounds bad, it doesn’t "really" measure well, it’s just that the wrong thing is being measured. The audio literature is full of measurements that do not translate into sound quality. It’s been going on for generations. Old timers will remember Julian Hirsch in High Fidelity magazine. He submitted meaningless measurements for years, in part because advertisers would not tolerate listening appraisals. They could not argue against measurements. The latest manifestation is represented by Amir’s tests in Audioscience.com. To him all cables, for example, are the same because he measures them to be the same. Amir either doesn’t listen, or he doesn’t hear very well. Such people sell themselves and others on measurement.

Not to say that the Musetec does not measure well; it does.

As for ethnic music and the like, I play a lot of Balkan ethnic music and a lot of pre-Baroque music with much percussion. Also organ music, and the low frequency response of the Musetec is thrilling if your speakers are up to the task. But if you want to know how it will respond to your precise library, you’ll have to try it for yourself. @dbb used classical music, the most difficult to reproduce properly. Harry Pearson, the dean of audio reviewers, did the same thing. He wrote that if it gets classical music right, it will get everything right.

As for better than the Topping? It has been shown to be better than several others that are better than the Topping. And better than the Topping: read what @yyzsantabarbara has written in the other Musetec thread.

melm
1,057 posts
 

@raddoctor 

Thanks for your response.

That's great.  Do let everyone know what you think.  There's no published review; there's no advertising.  Just a bunch of guys who bought the unit and are sharing impressions.

melm
1,057 posts
 

@agentwja 

Thanks for the kind words.  There are many fine DACs out there at all sorts of prices. I'm sure you'll find something suitable.  There are many folks around here who know much more than I do.  Don't hesitate to ask if you need to.  Happy New Year.

melm
1,057 posts
 

The recent establishment of a US dealer/distributer for the Musetec adds an additional dimension to the comparison.

melm
1,057 posts
 
Brilliant! Why can’t the "professional" reviewers attain this level?
melm
1,057 posts
 
One of the interesting things about this review is that it takes those of us who can remember, back to a different time in audio reviewing.

This was when a review was based, not on the reviewer’s preference for particular sounds, but on his determination of how accurate the component was to the sound of unamplified instruments in real space. This was The Absolute Sound in its original, not its current, incarnation. IIRC reviewers then were required to be regular unamplified music concert goers. In fact, Harry Pearson had an adjective for "sweeter and softer . . . even more so than actual live music." He would call such a component "euphonic," and in context it had a special meaning.

The saving grace of all of this, from HP’s point of view and many of his readers is that if a component did well reproducing unamplified instruments in real space, it would do equally well on everything else. He celebrated a large number of pop and rock recordings.
melm
1,057 posts
 
@milpai Re: your question about using the I2S inputs on the Musetec. My old DAC had I2S inputs as well, and I did some research thinking that if one used an ethernet to I2S converter you might gain something by bypassing the USB stage altogether. What I found was that there were not many such units, for there are not that many DACs with I2S inputs. A few that I identified were very expensive and it was difficult to find any safe way of knowing how effective they were. There was one at a reasonable price (under $1000) reviewed by Hans Beekhuyzen. He found that it worked about as well as an SOtM sMS-200 on his Mytec Brooklyn DAC. And that DAC does not have a very sophisticated USB to I2S conversion. As I was using an SOtM sMS-200 Ultra NEO there didn’t seem to be much point in pursuing this.

Moreover the Musetec DAC appears to be optimized for its USB input. It uses an Amanero Combo 384 interface USB to I2S board with femto clocks that measure better than the Crystek clocks used on many premium DACs. It also has one of the most sophisticated power supplies made for a digital side which consist of two banks of super capacitors that are functionally continuingly recharged batteries. Of course the 5V from the USB cable is not used which probably increases the quality of the digital signal in most USB cables you might use.
melm
1,057 posts
 
@redlenses03 As I read this review and with the OP evidently trying hard to make it fair, I think each DAC was tested with each laptop set up the same. If I’m incorrect, I trust the OP will be heard from.

You describe the OP’s conclusion somewhat differently than he does. You have the 005 with an "more of an analytical flavor" and the Holo "a bit more analogue." The problem is that "analytical" and "analogue" are loaded words in this context and you may be betraying a bias. (We all have biases, including me.) As I read what the OP has written, the 005 sounds more like the live unamplified music he has experienced. The Holo sounds, he writes, "softer and sweeter" than the live music itself. In other words: what we used to call colored or euphonic. When you write "analogue" (even as distinct from analog) perhaps you mean more like vinyl, which itself connotes a particular sound.

As I wrote earlier, there is a difference between personal preferences in sound, and accuracy to unamplified instruments in real space. At its origins The Absolute Sound made those distinctions clear. They have been lost in our own time. Each of us has different experiences with live sound and may be spending a lot of money on this stuff. Of course we are entitled to pick as we choose.
melm
1,057 posts
 
@redlenses03   I'm afraid you did it (showed your biases) again.
Can we agree on:  Clear/detailed > naturalistic side, warm/sweet = analogue'ish?  That would be more . . . . . . . clear.

I can think of deprecating adjectives for both sides, but I'm trying to be diplomatic.  These are two very fine DACs.  No need to apply negatives to them (most especially without an audition). 
melm
1,057 posts
 
@milpai   I think it is the Bricasti M1 (at about $10,000) that is the closest competitor in that line to the Musetec.  The Bricasti, though, has an additional streamer feature with an ethernet input.  

As for local dealership, I think of myself as a pioneer buying a Chinese DAC directly many years ago.  Given the advantage in quality/price ratio I have often been surprised at the resistance of others to do the same.  Since we're in a Musetec-Holo thread, let's compare.  You cannot audition either in advance.  Kitsune (Holo) offers a "10 day customer satisfaction policy."  But in addition to shipping, the customer pays a 15% restocking fee.  Do the math.  If you purchase a Musetec from Shenzhen Audio, there is a "30 Days No Reason Return."  You pay shipping.  Even so, If I wanted a Musetec I would apply directly to the factory.

In both cases, for any warranty work you deal with the factory.  Kitsune: "All product warranty coverage after 30-days will be handled directly by the product manufacturer."  That would generally mean that you try, with the manufacturer, to identify the problem, open the DAC, lift out a circuit board and send it in for repair.  The same with Musetec.  

If you want the local audition and the intermediation for warranty work, you pay for it.  Look at the popular "DAC Shootout Starts This Weekend" thread on this board.  It's mostly about high priced, high mark-up DACs. Quality/price ratio?  Not so much.
melm
1,057 posts
 
In a way this thread has become one of the more interesting as it gets to the heart of what different listeners want in a sound product. I believe that stretches well beyond DACs to all manner of audio equipment.

I remember similar discussions in the early vinyl days--with the choice of moving magnet (MM) or moving coil (MC) cartridges. There were those who swore by the comfortable listening benefits of the better tracking MMs, notably the Shure V15 series. On the other hand there were the early affordable MC cartridges that sounded a bit rough, but detailed and colorful. Remember the original high output Sumiko Blue Point or Blue Point Special? But they gave us another way of hearing the music bringing us closer to the real thing in some ways. Well the MMs developed in a way which gave more detail and color bringing them closer to the MCs. The affordable MCs developed in a manner that smoothed out the harshness and, dare I say, brought them closer to the more modern MMs. Differences still, but moving closer together. Sound familiar?
melm
1,057 posts
 
@sruffle
As to how the Musetec would fare being fed upsampling by HQPlayer, you might look at the experience with the LKS MH-DA004 DAC made by the same company. From the ESS chips through the analog stage the basic design is similar. However the Musitec is implemented at a much higher level both at the analog section power supply and at the section itself. And the digital section is entirely different.

At the LKS Head-Fi thread, https://www.head-fi.org/threads/lks-audio-mh-da003.745032/, there is much talk about success with HQPlayer upsampling. "Upsampling to DSD512 is awesome to say the least!" "External DSPs like HQplayer do a far better PCM -->DSD conversion" were some comments. A search on HQPlayer in that thread will come up with more experience. Depending on the contributor, their DAC may have gone through modification ranging from slight to substantial.

That being said, the Musetec does a much finer job than the LKS on all the digital configurations so any sonic improvement may be more subtle than on the LKS. Perceived improvement may depend upon surrounding components and your own sensitivity. But it looks promising.
melm
1,057 posts
 

@sanvara

You quoted my post.  The company is Musheng Audio ( 沐声音频 ).

Just as Holo makes the Spring DAC and the May DAC, they make the LKS DACs and the Musetec DAC. The Musetec is their current statement DAC.

I sometimes call the company Musetec as it is close to their actual name.

They also make other related products.

melm
1,057 posts
 

@lordmelton 

Did you order one?  Have you heard anything about delivery yet?

melm
1,057 posts
 

Given a number of recent posts on this very subject perhaps this thread could use a lift.  

melm
1,057 posts
 

@raddoctor

Also just saw the announcement of the new AKM 4499EX chip which looks quite impressive. May wait for new DACs with this chip before jumping on Musetek bandwagon.

I’m not sure there’s any "bandwagon" here.

One thing some of us think we have learned over the years is that the chip matters much less than we used to think.* What matters far more are considerations like the power supply and the analog circuit, that is, what happens when the signal leaves the chip. The ES9038PRO chip has been used in what turn out to be DACs of all different qualities ranging from the forgettable to the outstanding. The same, I think, has been true of chips made by other companies.

Be certain of one thing though, whatever DAC you choose, there will always be a better one offered in a few years. That march will go on forever with DACs and with everything else in the technical world..

*An exception perhaps for sigma-delta v. R2R which are thought by some to represent accurate v. pleasant sounding results, this being a very close call in well executed designs.

melm
1,057 posts
 

@batvac2

You might find this post written for the Musetec MH-DA005 thread to be relevant to the "missing data" issue you raise here.

melm
1,057 posts
 

Now that it has been compared to the Bricasti M1SE MDX, this review becomes even more relevant in placing the Musetec solidly within the community of DACs.

melm
1,057 posts
 


@sagur80
I hope the OP will respond to you in time. Just hought I’d set the record straight. Interest in the Musetec began at head-fi a while back. The OP and I were among the early users, each of us had the manufacturer’s earlier DAC the LKS 004. I can assure you that the OP bought this DAC from the factory with his own cash, as did I. I don’t know why anyone could fairly accuse the writer of this review, focusing on classical music no less, of having an "affiliation" with a tiny Chinese company. Apparently the small company can sell all it can make, mostly in Hong Kong.

There are a great many products discussed on these pages that get very little attention from the audio press. It is word of mouth. Some of us have more faith in this method of discovering fine products than in a review. The reviewers have their own reasons for pushing products that are not very good. And they never write about very small companies. As for the Musetec 005, it has been the subject of one of the most extensive person to person threads on any DAC in Audiogon with almost 1500 posts and 150,000 views. It is here. If you make the effort to go through it, you will find a substantial number of positive user reports. Some think it to be a $10,000 DAC selling for $3200. Just look at the parts used. See my response to the ASR review here.  The fact is any competent engineer can make a DAC that measures great.  Sounding great?  That's as much an art!

 

melm
1,057 posts
 

@sagur80

At your suggestion I spent about five seconds with "Timothy" and my only conclusion is that Timothey has an iPhone with which he can create youtube videos. I like, though, that he likes the Musetec. However as dbb wrote, you can’t tell anything from a youtube video.

As for aural fatigue, there is none for me with the Musetec; I can listen for hours to long classical works. If I’m not listening to digital I have an analog rig with an all tube phono pre that I can listen to for extended periods as well. Interesting that you raise this point now because among the last few posts on the "Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC" thread a comparison is made with another very well regarded European made DAC selling for about the same price as the Musetec. He preferred the Musetec because he is, "very sensitive to any treble or upper mid grain." If you go through the user’s posts in that thread I think you’ll come across many that write that they can listen for hours.

More to discover