@brbrock - Check out my write-up on the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro Z that I posted on 9-14-24 @ 1:12pm
Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
Showing 50 responses by mitch2
I will occasionally post on my progress here starting with the purpose, which is to share my subjective observations based on my direct comparisons of the listed DACs. This is NOT a play-off or “best DAC” competition, and I will probably not select a “winner” as I will be keeping at least two of them. Readers should understand that anything I observe and report is through the lens of my personal auditory preferences, my home system (virtual system posted here), my musical choices (to be listed), my methodology (or lack of), and is not intended to be interpreted as an authoritative “last-word” or an analysis following the scientific method. I am certainly open to suggestions and questions, and I don’t mind if people disagree with me, but if anyone simply wants to complain or argue because they don’t like my methods or reported observations they should conduct their own evaluation and post their own results. |
Hey Jim, glad you asked since I was going to list the pricing anyway, along with the chipset used in each, and provide a link to additional information. Three of them are R2R DACs, and one is a hybrid R2R topology. None of them use discrete resistor ladders. There is no link or published information on the specific SMc DAC-2 GT-24 as it is my understanding there are only about a dozen of them in existence. For purposes of this post, I will stick with original retail list price of each, and will not add the additional cost of the chip upgrades in the Mojo Audio DACs, which would increase their list prices by about $1K each. Linear Tube Audio Aero $3,950, one AD1865 chip, R2R Merason DAC1 MkII $8,500, dual BurrBrown PCM1794A chips, hybrid R2R Mojo Audio Mystique X SE NCZ, $9,999, dual AD1862N-Z chips, R2R Mojo Audio EVO Pro, $9,999, dual AD1862N-Z chips, R2R SMc Audio DAC-2 GT-24, $6,000+ est., one CS4328 chip Benchmark DAC3 HGC, $2,399, ES9028PRO chip |
@porchlight1 - There is something to that based on the SMc Audio DAC which uses 1990's technology with a Crystal Semiconductor CS8412 "E" Version receiver and CS4328 DAC. The DAC-2 sounds very good in spite of the older digital technology. The process of upgrading my original McCormack DAC-1 to an SMc Audio DAC-2 included installing a new/upgraded receiver but it still uses the same CS4328 DAC chip, which was rated as "good odnobitnik" by the reviewer in their 2012 DAC Chip List, while the AD1862 chip in my Mojo Audio DACs was rated "one of the best of the world’s Audio" and the PCM1794 in the Merason was rated "best of odnobitnik." I think the designer has to get both the optimal performance from whatever DAC chip (or ladder) they use as well as nailing it with however they choose to implement the output. |
Thanks @norust - I am simply going to post what I hear from the DACs listed in my system. I have been here about 25 years so will not be surprised regardless of the comments, but I also know some here will appreciate my observations. All six of the DACs sound good in their own way and I have no doubt that each one of them would have their fans. That is going to be the hardest part, not to let my biases overly influence my comments so that they come off as judgements. I will try and factually describe what I hear but, yes, I am going to like some of them more than others. Some here seem to get wound up over which of something is the "best" when there are so many variables such as the room, partnering equipment, musical selections, and listening biases and preferences, that "best" becomes an individual choice. I cannot tell somebody else what is best for them. Each of these DACs have professional reviews (which I will link), except for the SMc Audio DAC, so I will try not to overly repeat what has already been written and would urge those who are interested in a certain DAC to read the reviews. |
System My digital front end is described below. The analog portion of my system (after the DAC) can be seen on my virtual system page. My sole music source is digital and results from streaming Tidal or Qobuz, or from accessing stored digital music files that I have ripped from my CDs. I use Roon to control the music selections and as my user interface. I use a separate server and streamer with the server consisting of a SGC sonicTransporter i9 (Gen 4) that stores my music files on a SSD and runs Roon core. It is located in a “network” room, which also includes my cable modem and router. The i9 is connected to an optical switch as is my router and a 45-foot long fiber optic cable connecting my streamer. The Ethernet output from my router is isolated optically prior to arriving at the switch. The cable modem, router, switch and converters are all powered by linear power supplies and all of those items, plus the i9, are connected to a single, dedicated 20A line. My streamer is a Sonore Signature Rendu SE Optical that runs Roon Ready and is located in the same room as my main system. It uses a fiber optic input (from the network room) and outputs via USB into a Singxer SU6 DDC. The SU6 is powered from a supercapacitor that is recharged by an outboard linear power supply. The SU6 offers a variety of (live) outputs allowing me to connect three or four DACs at the same time. All of the DACs utilize the same balanced analog outputs to my preamp. Digital cables include a Totaldac filtered USB cable or Network Acoustics Muon USB cable, S/PDIF cables by Oyaide (5N Silver) or Canare, and a TWL AES/EBU cable. None of the DACs compared accept an I2S input. |
@helomech - That is true but Jim Austin’s “subjective” listening review compared it favorably with his PS Audio DirectStream DAC and, in this follow-up review, John Atkinson spoke very favorably about the sound of the Benchmark DAC3 B in his system, concluding with, “Highly recommended for Class A+ in Stereophile's Recommended Components” That said, while my listening so far has me surprised at how much I like the sound of the DAC3, it will probably not be my favorite out of the group. Nonetheless, if I only had $2K to spend the DAC3 would almost be a no-brainer. Keep in mind though, all of this is viewed through the lenses of partnering equipment and listener preferences.
|
@bassdude - Please take your playbook, your mission and your own advice and, "move on to those other threads." This thread has nothing to do with ASR, measurements only, or any of the other crap people here use to drive a wedge. The discussion was about one DAC out of six being compared that happens to have the combination of good measurements, a low price, and positive comments from a variety of reviewers. I found it to sound pretty good in my own system, even compared to the other five DACs. The Tambaqui exhibits good measurements too and has many who appreciate the sound (although it does cost quite a bit). I sold mine because I didn't find it quite as musical in my system as other DACs I own. Please go find a Tambaqui thread to inhabit or start your own. |
The comparison is ongoing. I am not rushing things and have other things going on like home projects and bike rides while the weather holds. I just retired last month so I am catching up on a long delayed to-do list of stuff while still occasionally consulting. I am continuing to listen to all of the six DACs while zeroing in on about a dozen music tracks that I will mostly use in the comparisons. I will post those selections here. I will also post some background on DACs I have previously owned that may serve as a basis for my impressions. I am still considering how to post my observations and may post a separate piece on each individual DAC with a final summary on how they compare with each other relative to my musical preferences, which of the DACs I like best, and the reasons why. |
@mammothguy54 - thank you, and glad you can still enjoy the things you love to do. |
Hello Benjamin. I hope things are well. My comparison includes two of your best DACs but as you point out, the Mystique Y Fe would be a much closer competitor to the LTA Aero since they are basically the same price. Of the six DACs currently in this comparison, only the Benchmark costs less. The SMc would be the next higher priced but attaching a number to it is hard since it is not a regular offering and I know they put a lot of extra effort into it. It would be at least 50% more than the Aero and your Y Fe. The Merason is $8,500 and your other two DACs probably originally listed/retailed for north of $10K with the (unobtainable) Z-chips and the NC chokes. You have shared before that you believe the Y Fe punches well above its weight and provides much of the benefits of your other DACs at a much lower price. |
Moving along with the DAC comparisons, I have provided a (rather long) summary of my digital audio background below. Background My background in digital audio started with CD players by Dennon, Theta, Pioneer, and others, and then later the top players from Lector, Ayre, and Muse. The next step was to use a CD transport into a separate DAC (Assemblage 3.1) and then later a modified Mac mini serving digital files to a DAC. I remember the Assemblage 3.1 (along with their D2D-1 converter) sounding relatively musical and looking back, there seemed to be a lot of attention to the power supply as well as using a Burr-Brown DF1704 24/96 digital filter and a pair of the Burr-Brown PCM 1704 24/96 DAC chips per channel. One of my Lector players used a BB PCM63 DAC chip and I remember how musical that player sounded, as well as perceiving a more detailed but somehow less organically musical sound after “upgrading” to their newer model that used the PCM1704 chip. Next, I moved to a couple of mid-priced DACs such as Ayre’s QB-9 DSD but still found the sound somewhat “digital” compared to my Lector and Muse CD players. After reading Srajan Ebaen’s 6moons review of the Metrum Acoustics NOS R2R mini Octave DAC, I purchased the Metrum Octave, then their Hex, and then moved up to their flagship Pavane and later Adagio. I enjoyed those Metrum Acoustics DACs, and particularly the Pavane, and perceived R2R DACs as having a more realistic and less electronic sounding presentation compared to others, like the Ayre, but I wanted something with a bit more meat on the bone, or maybe a bit richer tonality. Benjamin Zwickel, proprietor/designer at Mojo Audio, had tricked out my Mac mini as a music server so, after reading a very positive review by Jeremy Kipnis at Enjoy the Music about Mojo Audio’s Mystique v3, with its five choke input power supplies and AD1862N DAC chips, I decided to give it a try. Kipnis said this about the v3,
My time with the Mojo Audio Mystique v3 convinced me that I could indeed be satisfied with the sound I was hearing from my digital source. However, Benjamin does not sit still so to keep up I moved up the Mojo Audio line to the Mystique B4B21 and then the (previous) flagship Mystique EVO Pro, which IMO is the pinnacle of the design that began with the v3. A short time later, Mojo Audio came out with a similar but somewhat new design, predicated at least in part by their need to change the casework on their DACs. They christened the new DAC the Mystique X (for extruded case). After reading another round of positive reviews for that newest Mojo Audio DAC, I purchased a Mystique X SE. In short, I still preferred the sound of the EVO Pro over the X SE, and so I sold my X SE. After discussing this with Benjamin, I learned about limited edition Z-chips that Benjamin was putting into some of his DACs as a premium offering (AD1862N-Z chips were originally used in higher end Dennon CD players), and so I opened up the EVO Pro and sure enough, I found Z-chips. I have been happy to sit tight with the Mystique EVO Pro and enjoy the music. However, I sometimes like to try new stuff so I took an opportunity to purchase a Mola Mola Tambaqui, which I owned for a couple of months over the holidays. Even compared to the Tambaqui, I still liked the natural sound of the Mojo Audio EVO Pro DAC better, so I sold the Tambaqui. More recent opportunities resulted in my accumulation of the DACs I am currently comparing:
Sorry for such a long-winded background write-up but hopefully it provides context regarding my digital source and DAC journey up to this point. |
@soix - Sorry to drag this out but comparing six different DACs takes more time than I allotted! It might have been better (certainly easier) to compare two of them and then two more, and then two more, and then the three that I liked most and then the three I liked least. However, unlike a playoff, the goal is not to pick a "winner," but rather to simply report observations. I did post a picture of five of the DACs on my system page. The Mojo Audio Mystique X SE NCZ is not in my system right now as I do not have room, so I will move it in later. A couple of early observations would include that they all sound good, just different. There is not a single one of the six that I couldn't live with in my system, but I do like several better than the others. My preferences are most likely related to the music I listen to and the sonic preferences I prefer from my system. In my previous post, when I talked about liking a richer tone than I was getting from the Metrum Acoustics DACs, in general, the six DACs here do provide that. Another observation is that IMO the professional reviews of these DACs accurately portray what I am hearing - mostly. I would say there are embellishments and, as well, there are times you must read between the lines or pick-up on subtleties within the review but, in general, I would say the reviews are accurate. The specific SMc Audio DAC-2 that I have here has not actually been reviewed, but the previous "Ultra DAC" iteration received an extremely positive (almost too much so) review years ago at 6moons. While constructed from the same platform, the DAC-2 that I have here is different, and is supposed to sound better. When I get down to discussing my specific observations and comparisons, I do not intend to reinvent the wheel and will probably quote some of those existing reviews. I will also share that I really wanted to like the Merason but didn't like it so well at first. However, the more I listened, the more I liked it and now, even if it doesn't turn out to be my favorite, I do find it hard to switch to something else. It is just so easy to listen to and displays this rich sounding musicality on just about every type of music I throw its way. It is also absolutely unflappable, regardless of how hard you push it. |
BENCHMARK DAC3 HGC Benchmark DAC3 HGC Reviews
Benchmark DAC3 HGC Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. is essentially a manufacturer of professional audio equipment that has crossed over into the home audio realm. They offer a full line of audio electronics including DACs, ADCs, preamplifiers, headphone amplifiers, power amplifiers, and cables. Their products are known for being rugged, no-frills, good-sounding, long-lasting, and to provide excellent measured performance. Consistent with their pro audio background, Benchmark products are balanced designs and offer balanced connections. The Benchmark DAC3 HGC is Benchmark’s top-of-the-line DAC and, in addition to DAC duties, the DAC3 HGC offers an analog preamp, a special digital/analog hybrid volume control, and a headphone amplifier. I purchased a DAC3 HGC to perform as a DAC/preamp combo for my outdoor system and, when I tried it in my main home system, I was a bit surprised at how good it sounded. In these DAC comparisons, I am using the DAC3 HGC as a DAC only, and not as a headphone amplifier or preamp. I listened from the balanced outputs only. The DAC3 HGC costs $2,399 making it by far the least expensive DAC out of the six I am currently comparing. Since I am using it as a DAC only, I could have used the DAC3 B for $1,899 since that unit is a DAC only, sans headphone amplifier and preamp, with the exact same DAC sections and input/output connections as the DAC3 HGC. If you want the DAC and the preamp but not the headphone amplifier, the DAC3 L provides that combination for $2099. The linked reviews provide just about every bit of information you could possibly want about the DAC3 HGC including measurements, that are included with the Stereophile, Audio Science Review, and GoldenSound reviews, so please read the reviews for more information about the design, construction, aesthetics, and performance measurements. The Head Fi Forum review by T Bone is very positive and surprisingly comprehensive, from an end-user standpoint, and the Stereophile measurements are concluded by John Atkinson, who wrote, “Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is ’Wow!’” Amirm, at the (dreaded by some) Audio Science Review measured the DAC3 HGC (see linked review) and said, “The Benchmark DAC3 HGC …has substantially lower noise than all the other DACs I have tested.” Amirm concluded, “Measurements are exceptional with no faults found anywhere. OK, there is a setback in linearity for unbalanced output but otherwise, this is as good it gets guys.” Most of the reviewers praised the DAC3 HGC not only for its reliable operation and performance measurements, but also for how good it sounds. Reviewers called out the DAC3 HGC’s bass response and power, low-level information, drive and dynamics, expansive soundstage, stability of pitch, and tonal balance. Some of the reviewers allude to an opinion that certain (usually more expensive) DACs provide a little more of some sonic attribute than what they heard from the DAC3, but they mostly agree that this is a good-sounding DAC that faithfully converts and reproduces the digital signal that is fed into it. In his 2023 Stereophile follow-up review of the DAC3 B, John Atkinson says about the sound, “Perhaps there wasn’t quite the sense of ease I had become used to with the ($18,680 N31 CD player/DAC) MBL processor, but the fatigue-free wealth of recorded detail was a consistent factor in my auditioning of the DAC3 B.” One interesting review of the DAC3 HGC was posted at GoldenSound Audio and written by an unnamed author, who gave the DAC3 faint praise by calling the sound “good-ish”. The reviewer stated, “I couldn’t point out any particular problems or specific issues in the sound. There were no troubles with sibilance, no lack of impact on energetic tracks, it could stage decently, and detail retrieval was good.” However, the reviewer found the “spatial presentation” to be lacking compared to other similarly priced DACs from Gustard, SML, and Holo, and vocals to sound a bit “dry”. In the reviewer’s opinion, “The DAC3 provides something of a ‘wall of sound’ as opposed to a fully separated and distinct rendition of each element.” The reviewer also stated, “Soundstage is another element that was remarkably ‘just ok’ on the DAC3,” and “vocals are just slightly too dry, without the required body and warmth that his (i.e., Jon Batiste, St. Augustine High School Marching 100) voice portrays on various other chains.” The review was accompanied by measurements of the DAC3 HGC and followed by a few posted comments by readers, including comments by John Siau, VP, Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. Siau discussed how Benchmark’s ultraclock PLL provides an 85dB jitter reduction and that jitter would be essentially inaudible at anything below about 145dB SPL, a sound level you would never achieve from your home system. Most interesting to me was how the GoldenSound reviewer made the effort to describe specific aspects of the DAC3 HGC that they presumed are affecting the overall listener satisfaction of music played through that DAC. The other reviewers didn’t go that far and mostly pointed out the many positive aspects of the DAC3 HGC, with some of them adding an “except for”. A common theme seems to highlight the contrast of the DAC3 HGC’s transparency vs. the apparent greater musicality of some competitors. Is it possible the issues related to spatial presentation, soundstage, and timbre that were discussed by the GoldenSound reviewer transcend the importance of measurements alone in defining what sounds good? How else do you explain how a DAC that does nothing overtly “wrong,” displays technical measurements that seem to be close to exemplary yet, for some, falls a little short in a few key areas that are critical for listening enjoyment? Score one for the “not everything can be measured” crowd. The audio forums seem split on the issue, with some posters believing the DAC3 HGC sounds great while others seem to respect the measured and technical performance of the DAC3 HGC yet find something critical to their listening enjoyment to be missing. In my system, the DAC3 HGC sounded pretty good (I know, here we go with the faint praise), and particularly at the price-point. It is amazing to me how this (comparatively) very small box can perform at a level that at least approaches what I hear from units many times larger, many times heaver, and many times more expensive. I consider the DAC3 HGC as sort of a “Benchmark” (sorry, couldn’t resist) in that it seems to reproduce the sound as recorded, without sonic embellishment. The DAC3 HGC doesn’t seem to add a sound signature of its own, good or bad. I would describe it as being “even-handed.” It is better than competent, and IMO can be trusted to reproduce your digital files and streams with clarity, drive, and a realistic tone. The positive attributes I heard included full, hard-hitting bass, accurate tonality, and a clarity through the midrange that is effective in the reproduction of vocals. To my ears, the DAC3 HGC is surprisingly more musical than the audio forum chatter would have you believe. However, in comparison to the other DACs in my room it did not seem quite as dimensional as the Mojo Audio DACs (spatial presentation?), was less refined than the Merason, and was less exciting and perceptively “flatter” sounding than the LTA Aero. As to my music selections, the harder rockers were handled effectively and convincingly, and the DAC3 HGC was able to play loud without distorting or breaking up. All of the selections were played convincingly with the bass on the opening of Birds, by Dominique Fils-Aime’, being plump and full, and her vocals displaying a beautiful tone and life-like texture. The quiet background was effective on Steely Dan’s Babylon Sisters lending to the convincing play between Donald Fagen and the back-up singers with instrumentals filling in as intended. Alison Krauss’ vocals on Come and Go Blues were initially delicate and eventually building in emotion throughout the choruses, as intended. The keyboards sounded real and the sound of the strings matched the intent, from delicate to lively. Hall ambiance and crowd noise on live tunes like Gov’t Mule’s Thorazine Shuffle were well proportioned and properly positioned, and the solid bass from the DAC3 HGC added to the enjoyment of Allen Woody’s underpinning of Warren Haynes’ powerful vocals. Sort of like what I heard from the Tambaqui, there doesn’t seem to be much to complain about with the DAC3 HGC, yet still, my listening perceptions lead me to believe there are intangibles that cause some listeners, including myself, to achieve greater enjoyment with other DACs. What is an intangible? Crap, I don’t know but it may have something to do with the factors discussed in the GoldenSound review. I seem to hear more “pop” and excitement from the LTA Aero and somehow a more realistic impression of instruments through the Mojo Audio and SMc Audio DACs. The Merason seems to play music in a more refined manner. Several of these other DACs seem to do a better job of transporting me to the live venue, or to the recording studio, where real musicians are playing and singing. How can a DAC that almost perfectly reproduces a digital signal not sound better than other DACs, that are not quite so perfect? This hobby of home audio is subjective with most of us seeking enjoyment over perfection. That explains why so many manufacturers producing different sounding gear can be successful and why there is never a clear “winner” or “one to rule them,” no matter how hard some who frequent audio forums try to find one. This is another reason to consider these comparisons as nothing more than subjective observations based on my own experiences and preferences. In summary, while I could happily live with the DAC3 HGC, in my main system, I prefer to listen to most of the other DACs here, which range from around 2x to 5x the price of the DAC3 HGC. However, I certainly appreciate what Benchmark has accomplished for what, in the world of high’ish end audio, is a very accessible price. It is accurate, dynamic, unflappable, and IMO more musical than many give it credit for. If I didn’t already have a fairly mature system, I would certainly consider upgrading my amplification chain prior to spending more on a DAC. I would also not argue with those who find the DAC3 HGC to be their end-game DAC.
|
@soix - I have been thinking about your suggestion and I agree - comparing them all at once is not going to move things forward. Therefore, I will use the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro DAC as my baseline, since I am most familiar with it, and then compare the others to that DAC, one at a time. Michael Lavorgna at Twittering Machines does something similar when he compares whichever DAC he is reviewing at the time to his reference totaldac d1-unity. @bluethinker @audiomirror - The Audio Mirror Tubadour DAC seems to have many satisfied owners based on the posts I have read. I hadn't intended to expand my listening comparison beyond the DACs I originally listed, but I am always interested in hearing new products. I appreciate your suggestion that I give the Tubadour a try, but it would probably be best if I work my way through the DACs I have here now first. I will certainly keep it in mind. |
@agisthos - The only brand new unit is the LTA Aero, which was burned in at the factory for a week and has been in my system and turned on full time for three weeks, while playing music some of the time, maybe 30 hours. The Merason is an original DAC1 that was upgraded to MkII months ago, and the others I already owned. |
@vthokie83 and @trivema - Unfortunately, I do not have the Denafrips Pontus II DAC with an Iris DDC to include as part of the comparison, or any Denefrips DAC. I have considered trying a Terminator (in whatever iteration) several times but the timing or opportunity were never just right. I did try the Hermes DDC in my system for a couple of months but I had integration and performance problems getting it to work properly. I will say the Denefrips USA support team was very helpful and eventually sent me a new unit that worked, but I ended up selling it. I do like the idea of using a DDC (for having a variety of output options and lowering jitter out) and I currently use the Singxer SU-6, which I found to be a basic plug-n-play unit that has worked perfectly since I installed it. |
It was more challenging than I anticipated to choose a small group of music selections that were both representative of music I listen to, and also suitable to highlight attributes of the of DACs being compared. I started by creating a new playlist in Roon, where I could accumulate and compare tracks, and I eventually chose a smaller group of selections that I have grouped and listed below. Music Selections (Title, Artist, Album) Jazzy,
Vocals
Rock
|
@brbrock -
|
@soix - Galvanic isolation - good add. In the digital audio world, a decent DDC offers tangible improvements for an $800 box! In the world of DACs, I believe there can be quite a variance in the quality of the USB input, which can also be negated by using a good DDC to accept the USB input and then output to the DAC using another type of connection.. |
@moonwatcher - I am just finishing up my write-up on the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro, which will be my baseline for comparing against the others. LTA Aero will be next. All the nice end of summer weather we have had this week is getting in the way of my evaluations! |
Preamble My next post will consist of my observations of the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro DAC. This will be the longest write-up of the DACs being compared since I have owned this one the longest and I am very comfortable and pleased with the sound of the EVO Pro DAC. The EVO Pro will be my baseline, or reference, for the following DAC comparison write-ups. In my write-ups for the individual DACs, I plan to link professional on-line reviews related to the subject DAC. To get the most out of my comparison write-ups, I suggest reading the linked reviews, because they will contain technical, operational, and aesthetic information about the subject DACs that I will not repeat in my write-ups, and because I may refer to comments contained in some of the reviews. In addition, I agree in general with the observations and conclusions reported in the published reviews for these DACs. However, in some cases you need to read between the lines, and certain reviewers either have bias for or against a certain type of sound, or exaggerate certain aspects of the subject DAC but, overall, I believe the reviewers mostly nail the essence of each DAC. After the EVO Pro, I plan to post a write-up on the Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC, because there seems to be the most interest in that DAC and because I am under a time line for that one. I will save the Mojo Audio Mystique X SE NCZ until last and provide a comparison between the two Mojo Audio DACs. My initial impression between those two DACs favored the EVO Pro but because of the many positive reviews of the X SE, my discussions with Benjamin, and my purchase of the NCZ version of the X SE, I will revisit my comparison between the two Mojo Audio DACs to find out if I reach the same conclusion. Disclaimer Keep in mind that my subjective observations will be biased by my personal auditory preferences, my home system (virtual system posted here), my music selections, and my methodology (or lack of). Also remember, this is NOT a play-off or “best DAC” competition, and I do not plan to select a “winner”. The write-ups I will post are not intended to be interpreted as an authoritative “last-word” or an analysis following the scientific method. I am certainly open to suggestions and questions, and I don’t mind if people disagree. |
Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro
Applicable Articles and Published Reviews Dagogo – Benjamin Zwickel on the Mojo Audio Mystique v3 Enjoy the Music – Jeremy Kipnis’ review of the Mojo Audio Mystique v3 Audiophilia - Karl Sigman’s review of the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro Enjoy the Music – Dr. Matt Clott’s review of the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro
Observations The Mojo Audio Mystique EVO line represents the enhanced evolution of Mojo Audio’s full-width chassis DAC design that began with their Mystique v3 (reviewed by Jeremy Kipnis at Enjoy the Music). The Mystique v3 DAC is also the first Mojo Audio DAC to use the 20-bit AD1862 R-2R chip (previous Mojo Audio designs used the 18-bit AD1865 chip) and the first to use five choke input power supplies. If you are interested in Mojo Audio’s Mystique DACs, please read the Kipnis review as well as the Dagogo article linked above as they provide historical background information about the Mojo Audio DAC designs. In awarding the Mystique v3 a Blue Note Award - 2018, Enjoy the Music editor, Steven Rochlin, said this:
I shared the link to Kipnis’ review, and Rochlin’s comments above, to illustrate the effect that the sound of the v3 DAC had on those experienced audio equipment reviewers and to show why, after reading the review, I was compelled to purchase the second-hand v3 that eventually replaced Metrum Acoustic’s Pavane and Adagio in my system. When I found out Benjamin Zwickel had introduced the Mystique EVO line as an upgrade to the v3, I purchased a new Mystique EVO B4B 21 DAC directly from Benjamin. The B4B 21 was the middle child in the EVO line that included the basic, B4B, and Pro models. Like the v3, the EVO B4B 21 ticked pretty much every audio box for me and provided the best digital sound I had ever heard in my system. Within a year or so, I saw a for-sale listing for a Mojo Audio EVO Pro model, and I purchased that, which is the subject of this write-up. The improvements in moving from the v3 to the EVO B4B, and finally to the EVO Pro were incremental but certainly noticeable. IMO, the house sound for all of those DACs includes full and deep bass, underpinning a tonally rich midrange, and extending to smooth and sweet-sounding high frequencies. These enjoyable sonic attributes collaborate rather than compete with each other, resulting in an organic, natural-sounding presentation that some might describe as reminiscent of vinyl playback in that it doesn’t sound like the digital reproduction that I had become used to before owning the v3. The EVO Pro DAC somehow accomplishes the sonic signature described above without any perceived loss of detail or drive. The detail is present, the bass can be felt, and the midrange sounds so natural that vocals are a pleasure to listen to. The main thing I like with the EVO Pro is that it all works together to create a coherent and believable sonic presentation. The EVO Pro avoids sounding unnatural like some DACs that are detailed to the point of sounding etched, or that make it seem as if vocalists have moved out into the room, or that present overly damped/tight bass with little to no decay. I also hear no unnatural or irritating roughness, dryness, or congestion, regardless of the source material or how busy the music gets and, as a result, the EVO Pro could be considered somewhat forgiving of poorly recorded source material. All of this leads to engaging and enjoyable listening sessions without listener fatigue, at least in my room. When listening to Birds through the Mystique EVO Pro, the opening bass line just jumps out at you big and full, with the sense of fingers on strings. The drums and different percussion instruments are distinct. I can easily hear the differences in tone and inflections between Dominique Fils-Aime’s lead vocals and her back-up singers. Not only is the detail present but the instruments carry weight and the singing is tonally rich. It is similar with The Girl from Ipanema, the instruments sound real and are perfectly proportioned to back up the wonderful singing by Joao Gilberto and Astrud Gilberto. Through the EVO Pro, the music is so relaxed I have the feeling I am sitting under a palm tree at an outdoor café. Freddie Freeloader was perfectly balanced between Miles’ horn, the percussion, and piano. The attack and sustain of the piano keys were realistic and engaging. Sound staging was rock solid with each player perfectly positioned for a sense of realism. I just saw the Tedeschi Trucks Band a few weeks ago and listening to the live version of Angel from Montgomery took me right back to the concert. Through the EVO Pro, Susan’s unique tone sounded just right. Even the rock selections on my list like Thorazine Shuffle, Fell on Black Days, and Staind’s Outside were big and loud enough to be believable. I sensed no breakup or strain through my system when rocking out to those songs at a pretty loud level. You might ask, so how much of this is related to the EVO Pro and how much to the rest of the system itself and I would have to say, I don’t fully know the answer to that. Some thoughts would be that my 650wpc SMc monoblocks can put out serious juice and do it in a controlled and musical manner. In addition, the Aerial LR5s like lots of current and can get really loud without strain as discussed in the review by Michael Fremer. So, the system itself might have something to do with why all six of these DACs sound pretty good to me. However, I do hear differences between the six DACs and not all of them do the things I discussed above to the same level, or in the same manner. Does the EVO Pro do anything wrong? Here is where I come up a little short. I have owned a few DACs at or around the same price range but nothing in the $15-20K range, with the Tambaqui coming closest, and the Tambaqui is not a good comparison because the sound of those two DACs are quite different. What I heard from the Tambaqui was all about musical precision, which didn’t exactly correlate to the rich, full, natural sound I hear from the Mojo Audio DACs. I have said a couple of times that to my ears, the Tambaqui sounded “perfect” but not necessarily in a manner that engaged me the way the Mojo Audio DACs engage me. I can imagine some of you readers thinking, “what an idiot to sell a Tambaqui for this older technology R2R DAC!” Oh well, this is my subjective comparison, based on my musical preferences, and it is what it is. I can refer you to the linked Dr. Matt Clott review of the Mystique EVO Pro, where he compares the EVO Pro to his $40K Davinci 2 and $19K Pilium Audio Elektra and said, “During my comparisons, and to Benjamin’s enormous credit, I never felt the Mystique EVO B4B to be massively outclassed.” Therefore, to wrap up, in my world and considering the general price range, I perceive no significant sonic shortcomings to the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro, although some might own DACs that offer a bit more detail, a more expansive perceived sound stage, and/or a touch more refinement (like I hear from the Merason DAC1 MkII). Some might not care for the appearance of the very plain black box (that weighs about 30 pounds), or the absence of knobs, displays, or functions. Also, the absence of an I2S input, and/or the ability to decode DSD or MQA may be a deal breaker for some. However, for others, the Mojo Audio house sound, and the Mystique EVO Pro specifically, could be just the thing that elevates their digital source to a higher musical level. To quote Karl Sigman from his linked review:
FWIW, my observations discussed above were based on running the EVO Pro through its S/PDIF coaxial input and balanced outputs. My system is as described earlier in this thread, with the pertinent digital front-end consisting of a SGC sonicTransporter i9 (Gen4), fiber to a Sonore Signature Rendu SE, USB to a Singxer SU-6 DDC, and then the coax output to the EVO Pro. |
@brbrock - pretty sure the LTA Aero uses chokes but not the big Lundahl chokes used by Mojo Audio. I will look into it. I suggest reading the links I posted that have direct comments from Benjamin Zwickel if you haven’t already. |
Benjamin brings up a very important point in that with any of this stuff, the subjective opinions of reviewers, manufacturers, equipment owners, and others are predicated by the personal experiences and preferences of the individuals providing their point of view, as well as their partnering equipment and music choices. I can only refer to the "Disclaimer" portion of my post from 9/14 at 10:38pm, where I said, in part,
I do not expect everyone else to view things the way I view them. However, keep in mind that I have twice owned the Mystique X SE DAC at the same time as I owned the Mystique EVO Pro DAC, and I currently own the top-of-the-line, flagship Mystique X SE NCZ version as well as the EVO Pro (with Z-chips) that was the subject of my write-up posted on 9/14. I am currently focused on the LTA Aero but, as I stated in this thread previously:
|
The “Z” in X SE NCZ means the X SE unit I own already has the Z-chips, as well as nano-crystalline chokes (“NC”) making it essentially Benjamin’s current “flagship” DAC. I did talk with Benjamin some time ago about moving the Z-chips from my EVO Pro to a non-Z, X SE but he said there was more involved than simply swapping the chips so I didn’t go forward with that. |
@zmann007 - My thoughts on the $4K LTA Aero should be posted by tomorrow, and the $2K Benchmark write-up is also almost done and will go up shortly after. I have started listening more seriously to the Merason, which will follow, then the SMc Audio DAC-2 and finally the Mojo Mystique X SE NCZ. Benjamin’s Mystique Y would be a good one to also look at for $4K, but I haven’t heard it. Here is a link to a review. |
Linear Tube Audio - Aero DAC Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC Reviews
Linear Tube Audio Aero The new Aero DAC by Linear Tube Audio has generated quite a buzz with respect to the level of performance offered for the (relatively affordable) list price of about $4K. The published reviews (linked above) have been universally positive, with a very enthusiastic review being written for Stereo Times by Terry London, who believes the sound of the Aero compares favorably (or at least competitively) with DACs selling for much higher prices. I like the understated appearance of the Aero, which is a black box that doesn’t bring undue attention to itself, but includes enhancements being the calm yellow’ish LED lights indicating power, input, and sampling rate; the two round brass power and input switch buttons; and the two lighted 12SN7 tubes extending slightly above the top of the chassis (so you don’t have to take the unit apart to change tubes). As an aesthetic design feature, the chassis is wrapped on all sides by mitered solid aluminum plate of the same thickness that many companies use for their faceplate. LTA seems to have thoughtfully attended to every detail, including the very sturdy cardboard shipping box with conforming hard foam liner to protect the Aero enroute. The only thing I found aesthetically curious was the orientation of the output connectors on the back in that the right output is on the left side and the left output is on the right side. Of course, this would most likely be a non-issue for most owners who would not be connecting/reconnecting output cables to conduct DAC comparisons. The LTA Aero is an R/2R NOS Ladder DAC, like the previously discussed Mojo Audio DACs. This describes the general method the DAC uses to convert a digital signal to analog, which is basically converting a finite-precision number into a physical quantity such as a voltage. Google is your friend for a more technical description of the meaning of R/2R and NOS but, in simple terms, the designation R/2R, or R2R, refers to resistors of two values, R and 2R, which are used to construct a ladder network of resistors resulting in a voltage output that is a fraction of a reference voltage. An R/2R network can be constructed from either discrete components (i.e., a bunch of resistors as in the Totaldac) or within a silicon chip like the AD1865 chip used in the LTA Aero. NOS indicates non over-sampling. The function of a DAC (digital to analog converter) is to convert a digital input into an analog signal (i.e., voltage) that can be amplified by a preamp and/or power amplifier. It is my experience that DACs do sound quite different from each other so there must be differences in how they handle the conversion of the digital input and/or how they achieve the analog output. Some folks make a big deal about which DAC chip is used, and there are quite a few options out there. The Aero uses an Analog Devices AD1865 chip, which is the same as used in earlier versions of the Mojo Audio DACs and in their current Mystique Y DAC, as well as in some Audio Note DACs, and others. The chip is well regarded sonically, at least according to the 2012 DAC Chip List by Antonino Scozzaro at Soundbsessive. The analog output stage of the LTA Aero is unique in that it is based on a Class-A ZOTL Output Stage, which provides an impedance-matched tube output stage to the loudspeaker without using an output transformer. Other design features include the attention paid to the power supplies, the discrete, active I/V stage, and the large 300K uF of storage capacitance. Additional technical information about the features and benefits of the LTA Aero can be found at the above link to the LTA website. LTA describes the sound of their Aero DAC as delivering “crystalline realism, organic timbre, and an encompassing soundstage” and they believe that it has “unlocked that emotional involvement with the digital format”. That pretty much describes what I heard. When I played the first music selection through the LTA Aero I thought, wow, this thing makes the music pop! The level of energy I heard made it seem that music was jumping out of my speakers, regardless of the volume level. That perception is not an easy trick to pull off but it does enhance the engagement level of listening to recorded music in your home. If I want boring, I can play background music through a transistor radio. The LTA Aero is definitely not boring. Based on my listening, the LTA Aero not only gets most of the audiophile prerequisites right, it also presents the music with vivid presence and a dynamic sense of realism. The Stereo Times review alludes to this when Terry London wrote, “Blazing fast transients, extended accurate bass reproduction, and a sense of PRAT (pace-rhythm-and timing) that makes it difficult not to tap your toes to the music.” Herb Reichert at Stereophile commented on “the Aero’s extraordinary way with PRaT”. I cannot say which design decisions went into the Aero that allow it to present this level of excitement compared to what I hear from most other DACs, but the Aero never sounded dull on any music I threw at it. After much listening, I suspected there may be a slight emphasis on the leading edge of notes and/or on the upper midrange and presence regions (from about 2K to 6K Hz, and maybe a touch higher). I also don’t hear quite the same level of tonal warmth and power in the lower midrange/upper bass region that I am familiar with from the Mojo Audio DACs. This goes back to how I hear different voicings from different DACs. As I ran through my list of music selections, the commonalities I heard from the Aero included the clarity of the high frequencies, tonal richness, and a high level of dynamic expression (i.e., the ability of the Aero to quickly go from very soft to very loud). You would never mistake music through the Aero as “background music”, regardless of the volume level. This DAC can make familiar selections more exciting to listen to and many will appreciate the ability to listen at low levels without a loss of realism. On recording after recording, the sound from the Aero demanded my listening attention. Female vocals by Astrud Gilberto, Dominique Fils-Aime’, and Sara Bareilles were well-served and fun to listen to through the Aero. Less complex presentations such as James Taylor’s Steamroller Blues highlighted the clarity of James’ vocals supported by his and Danny Kortchmar’s guitar work and the horn section that rolls in later. The projection of the upper mid to high frequencies of Sara Bareilles’ vocals were dynamically expressed through the Aero, and her crescendo at about 3:30 into the song Gravity from her Variety Playhouse live album was emotionally and beautifully presented. Even the harder rock tracks on my test selections including Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana and Outside by Staind were hard-hitting without any evidence of break-up when things really got rocking. Neil Young’s high tenor vocals on Cortez the Killer seemed to have just the right tone and bite. Based on the selections I played, it seems the Aero should sound good with all types of music. This was a difficult write-up because the Aero does so many things well that I want to convey that IMO this is a really good sounding DAC, yet my subjective preferences favor a couple of the (2x to 3x) more expensive DACs that I have here. I will make the distinction that I am not saying those more expensive DACs are inherently better, but I do like some aspects of how they sound because they more closely align with my sonic preferences. Therefore, I urge folks reading this to consider the many positives offered by the Aero such as the rich tonal qualities and dynamic presence that few (if any) DACs I have heard can match at its $4K price. I can envision many buyers will be perfectly happy to live with the Aero DAC in their systems for a long time. What could be improved? In my listening, the slight emphasis on the upper midrange to high frequencies that I perceived sometimes resulted in a slightly forced presentation in those regions and a touch of hardness to certain recorded material. I can envision others saying that the Aero is simply providing a level of clarity and detail in those regions that I am not used to hearing. I would not argue with them, but the overall presentation to my ears doesn’t quite achieve the same level of refinement I have come to enjoy from my Mojo Audio DACs. This doesn’t reduce the musicality of the Aero, but it does suggest the overall presentation is more energetically focused, which Robert Harley referred to as, “athletic boogie factor”. I looked through the linked reviews and found a couple of subtle observations by the reviewers that seem to be similar to what I sometimes heard, including: “the LTA Aero DAC …imparted a bit of hardness and thinness from the upper midrange (on up) to the Unison/DeVore system…Switching in the more costly totaldac illustrated, immediately and obviously, that the Aero DAC was responsible.” – Michael Lavorgna, Twittering Machines and “To my surprise, LTA’s DAC shifted the energy emphasis from the bass and midrange—the bottom octaves of Waits’s voice—up to the midrange and treble, presenting Waits’s vocals with considerably less weight and texture. With the Aero, the song’s lyrics were clearer to my ear but less gnarly, gritty, and attitude-rich.” – Herb Reichert, Stereophile I also found an interesting observation about the Analog Devices AD1865 chip used in the Aero, compared to the AD1862 chips that are used in the two Mojo Audio DACs that I have here. It sort of describes the basic differences I hear between the Aero and my two Mojo Audio DACs. The statement below was written in a review of the Mojo Audio Mystique Y DAC, with respect to Mojo Audio’s use of the AD1865 chip in their new Mystique Y DAC compared to their using the AD1862 chip in their Mystique X SE DAC. “The sonic differences between the two chips are subtle but noticeable. The 18-bit (AD1865) chip sounds energetic and exciting, while the 20-bit (AD1862) chip sounds more harmonically dense and liquid.” – Ken Redmond, Tracking Angle In conclusion, the LTA Aero is a very nice DAC, nice to look at, musical and fun to listen to, built by a really nice group of folks at Linear Tube Audio, and a no-brainer for a test-drive by anyone interested in a DAC at a price range of around $4K or higher. These things always come down to personal preference, and I have no doubt that many will find the LTA Aero DAC to offer a perfect musical solution. |
@soix - Absolutely. I had all six DACs here at once over the past month and the LTA Aero is the only one that had to be returned. I own the others. I had five of them powered up and on my stand and three or four of them connected through the DDC at any one time. At first, the only one out of the mix was the Mojo Mystique X SE NCZ. I listened to all of them off and on for a couple of weeks and then began focusing on whichever DAC that I was preparing a write-up for. The three you asked about offer three quite different presentations, IMO, so at least for me an apples to apples comparison would be difficult. They all bring their strengths to the table, but not the same strengths. That is why it is important for buyers to think about which sonic attributes they value most, since no one DAC is likely to fully cover every base. I am trying to write about the strengths and limitations of each unit, as I hear them, and then at the end I will consider preparing a short summary comparison of all six. However, I cannot tell a prospective buyer which unit would work out best for them. As we read many times in these threads, you really do need to hear stuff for yourself. |
To all, it seems we want to read that our latest/greatest, or next/greatest, purchase will be universally acclaimed and will suffer all scrutiny without any identified flaws. It just doesn’t work that way. As an example, look at all the subjectively positive reviews of the Mojo Mystique X SE DAC and then John Atkinson comes along and craps on it based on the measurements and, to make matters worse, writes a follow-up where he hears issues with the DAC that he believes are consistent with the measurements. Does that make all the positive reviews by experienced reviewers invalid? We are all preconditioned both inherently and by our experiences, including professional reviewers. Am I qualified to write about a DAC that provides a sonic presentation that is different from what I have come to appreciate and from what I most often listen to? In addition, most of my listening is done through $10K’ish DACs so is it surprising that I didn’t walk away with an Aero for my main system - not really. This is why I did my best to stick with what I actually heard, which was mostly very good yet not exactly aligned with what I am used to hearing. This is also why folks need to keep in mind that any review, post, or subjective opinion reflects the perspective of somebody looking through their own lenses, which is bound to be at least a little different from how the reader would perceive things. @stuartk - I suggest trying to hear one or, if you like most of what you read about the Aero from both my write-up and from other reviewers, then take LTA up on their 14-day trial. Even with return shipping and fees if you choose not to keep it, the cost of an audition is less expensive than traveling to attend an audio show and you would have the benefit of hearing it in your own room. As I said in my write-up, it really is worth a listen. I don’t know where else you go in the $4K new range although several options have popped up lately. Benjamin’s new Mystique Y might be an option, although he hasn’t said any more about sending me one to try out and I am not going to buy one just to hear a lesser version of two Mojo DACs I already have here. You might want to read the Ken Redmond review. @sls883 - Good thing I took pictures when I boxed it up, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to answer you question. The one tube box that shows up in my pictures indicates it is a GE12SX7GTA FYI all, I am wrapping up my write-up of the Benchmark DAC3 HGC, which I will post by this weekend, and moving on to more detailed listening to the Merason DAC1 MkII. |
@markmuse - Michael Lavorgna at Twittering Machines is planning to post a follow-up review (Part 2) of his LTA Aero based on his tube rolling and what he hears when trying different tubes. Had I been in the market for a DAC in the price range of the Aero, I definitely would have had at least one extra set of tubes ready to try. It is certainly possible that a different set of tubes could improve on what is already a good-sounding DAC. Keep in mind it also uses 6SN7s FWIW. |
@markmuse - I wouldn’t rule out the Aero based on my impressions, which were mostly positive. Also, remember there is a 14-day trial period. I will try and get my hands on a Mystique Y, which would help provide a bit of contrast at the $4K price point. The other ones I would like to hear and haven’t are the Holo May KTE and Terminator 15th, but I am not buying more DACs. BTW, starting with the Merason comparisons, I have been using the Decibel X app to match SPLs the best I can. I realized these DACs all have different output voltages and different presentation styles so getting the SPLs close for comparisons will be helpful. |
That is really the thing. In the old days, before PETA and SPCA (with which I volunteer), we used to say, "there is more than one way to skin a cat". The point is, none of these DACs presents the same sound, at least in my room. However they will each have their proponents and detractors. I have moved my comparison listening on to the Merason DAC1 MkII and, as sort of a preview, I had really hoped it was going to be something special. When I first hooked it up my impression was, "really, this is the DAC that is winning awards?" However, after completing my time with the LTA Aero and Benchmark DAC3 and removing those from my system, I have really spent some time listening to the Merason and I also reinstalled the Mystique X NCZ so I could compare them. There is a reason some manufacturers say a product needs to burn in, and it may have less to do with the components "burning in" and more to do with the listener becoming acclimated with something new. A shorter way to say this is that the Merason is a really nice sounding DAC, but it does sound a bit different from the other DACs here. I suspect what I am hearing may be the difference between really good R-2R DACs and a DAC with a really good delta-sigma type sound. However, I haven't had a delta-sigma DAC here since the Ayre QB-9 DSD years ago, and the Merason sounds way better than my recollection of the Ayre. Also, I am not sure it is correct to call the Merason a (fully) delta-sigma DAC since, the PCM1794A chip is considered a hybrid. I have been looking into what this means and found this:
|
@sns - Regarding the Musetec MH-DA006, I like the appearance and there are design aspects of that DAC that look very interesting. Also, I could input I2S out of the Singxer DDC. I do keep hearing how the $4K'ish price range is getting jam-packed with good sounding digital. Adding a Musetec MH-DA006 would certainly be interesting at the $4K price point since I believe I plan to add a Mojo Audio Mystique Y to the comparisons, which is also $4K (although Benjamin at Mojo Audio sold one of his demos and needs to fill orders before I can get one). However, I am not going to buy any more DACs for awhile, and I probably wouldn't buy a DAC at the $4K price point, but if there were another way to get my hands on a Musetec for an audition (somewhere between two weeks and a month), I would certainly consider it. |
This has been interesting in realizing how important it is to match SPLs (sound pressure levels) when comparing audio equipment. It is fine to listen and evaluate a unit on its own merits at various volume levels, but when directly comparing two or more units I have realized it is important to match the volume levels, or SPLs for the most meaningful comparison. Fortunately, my system has a buffer/preamp set-up with a numerical display of volume level so that once I use the Decibel X app to determine/estimate which VC settings produce the same SPL for the units being compared, I can easily switch between the units and select the appropriate volume level. This has been a bit eye-opening, not only because of how different the settings are for different equipment to achieve the same SPL, but more about how the sonic differences sometimes become less when SPLs are matched. Finally, it is also interesting to hear how different equipment may have a different optimal SPL for music playback in that some equipment seems to handle low-level listening better than other equipment and some equipment does better at the higher SPLs. |
@sns - Widely variable from as little as about 20 minutes to maybe 3 hours, with most being like a half-hour to 2 hours, sometimes listening intently and taking notes, other times reading or working on my computer. For these comparisons, I have kept a small notebook handy to record impressions as they occur. |
@rja -Take a look at this review of the Mystique Y DAC, where Ken Redmond asks the same question you just asked, and received this answer:
|
@brbrock - This review of the Mystique EVO shows a good image of the insides of the full-sized chassis that was used through the EVO Pro model and changed to the narrower but longer extruded chassis first used for the Mystique X. You should be able to gauge the size of the chokes from the image showing five of them in the full-sized chassis. |
MERASON DAC1 MKII Merason DAC1 MkII Reviews
Merason DAC1 MkII I expected great things from the Merason DAC1 MkII based on the positive published reviews I read, which all commended the thoughtful design choices, fanatical attention to detail, and excellent sound quality based on the DAC1’s tone, bass, drive, and refinement. So, I was a little surprised when I first connected it and heard…nothing special. It was a good thing that I kept listening. It has not been very often that my first impression about audio gear is so off-base. Not that the Merason did anything wrong when I first heard it, because it didn’t, but rather what I was hearing didn’t seem to engage me to the same level after listening to my Mojo Audio DACs and the LTA Aero. However, after the Merason DAC had been powered up for a week or so, and after I moved it to a location in my rack where I could connect a better digital coax input cable (Oyaide 5N silver DB510 vs. Canare L-4.5CHD by BJC), it sounded much better than what I first remembered. The final touch was when I replaced the Totaldac filtered USB cable I was using between my Sonore Signature Rendu SE Optical and my Singxer SU-6 DDC with a Network Acoustics Muon USB cable, which seemed to increase incisiveness. The design and construction of the Merason DAC1 MkII is explained in more detail in the reviews linked above, as well as on Merason’s website, which describe the galvanic isolation, dual DAC converter modules, Class A buffering technology, fully balanced circuitry, and special attention to the 12 power supplies used in the DAC1. These features and more demonstrate the fastidious Swiss engineering that has gone into the Merason DAC1 MkII. The Merason DAC1 MkII uses two Burr-Brown PCM1794A chips, which are hybrid DAC chips in that they use both R-2R and Delta-Sigma conversion topologies. I found the following quote about the PCM1794A chip, "Segmented PCM1794 is described as having 'true' multibit DAC for the most significant bits, while a multi-level delta sigma modulator for lower bits.” So, how did all of this Swiss engineering translate to music? On my test tracks, and on other selections from Tidal’s and Qobuz’s streaming libraries, the Merason DAC1 MkII has been incredibly engaging to listen to. Clarity is very good as is the tonal quality. Bass is full, plump, deep, and powerful. Detail is also good but the strong suit of the Merason seems to be the wonderful tonal qualities and presence of the middle frequencies down into the bass. Both female and male vocals were handled in a manner that placed them as a main feature, underpinned by warm, full, deep bass lines and augmented by whatever other instruments were playing. However, unlike some equipment that seems to thrust the mids/vocals forward in the soundstage, the Merason kept everything in its place, and provided the effect of enveloping the listener in sound. As other reviewers have discussed in their own words, I also perceived high frequencies to typically play a bit of a supporting role as opposed to being part of the main attraction. This may account for what some have discussed as the “refined” sound of the Merason DAC1 MkII. Attack seems to be harmonically a bit lower in priority than decay, sustain, and release. As a result, the Merason is easy to listen to and never fatiguing although one trade-off may be a slight touch of smoothing-out of some rough edges, and not quite as “raw” a sound on music or vocals that are intended to sound “gritty”. To my ears, the effects described above are subtle and are not a detraction, especially given all of the other positive attributes the Merason exhibits. Some may simply say the Merason sounds “smoother.” Interestingly, when listening to the Merason, I do not perceive any loss of high frequencies or details but, as others have mentioned, the result is subtle and might be described as a sound we more commonly associate with vinyl records than digital sources. I was ok with this since the opposite usually leads to listening fatigue. I suggest reading the High Fidelity review, which I thought was well-written and accurate as to the salient features and sound of the Merason DAC1 MkII. The reviewer, Wojciech Pacula, described the DAC 1 as having, “perfectly balanced proportions, with an internally complex, refined sound. The latter is slightly lowered, with strong support in the mid-bass and in the breakthrough with the midrange. The treble, on the other hand, is selective, resolving, but also dense and more ‘loose’ than ‘biting.’" He goes on to conclude, “It's a dynamic, energetic presentation with a clear sonic signature in which richness and density are the most important features.” I agree that richness and (tonal) density are stand-out features of the Merason DAC1 MkII. Those are desirable attributes in my sonic world, which may be why I found the Merason DAC1 MkII engaging to listen to, although some listeners may wish for a more incisive type presentation. Not every DAC is going to engage every listener on every parameter to the same degree. On track after track, the Merason DAC1 MkII captured the organic beauty of vocal presentations and provided a rich, engaging delivery through my system. From Chris Cornell on “Songbook,” to James Taylor on “Steamroller Blues,” to Dominique Fils-Aime’ on “Birds,” to Sara Bareilles on “Gravity,” and more, the vocals were tonally dense and musical. Even the rock selections were presented with force, weight, and believability. The Merason never faltered, distorted, or became congested regardless of the material or the volume I played it at. Of course, there are trade-offs. To my ears, the Merason DAC1 MkII sounds a touch smoother and less “organic/natural” than what I hear when I play music through my Mojo Audio R-2R DACs. Going back and forth between the Merason and Mojo’s Mystique EVO Pro, I hear more granularity and front/back dimension through the Mojo Audio DAC, resulting in a sound that is slightly more incisive and could maybe be described as more “exciting,” while the Merason is perhaps slightly smoother and more focused on tonal density. What I hear may simply be the difference between listening to a DAC using (hybrid) Delta-Sigma conversion processes vs. DACs using R-2R conversion. Delta-Sigma conversion involves interpolation, noise shaping, and error correction to approximate the waveform, and is a process that can result in a smoother, idealized sound. In the end, these differences I have described do not make listening through the Merason any less engaging, just a bit different from what I am used to. This is a good example of how there is no one path to achieving a sonically gratifying result. The design choices Merason made have resulted in a DAC that is very enjoyable to listen to, even if it sounds a bit different from my other DACs. I am sitting here with Gov’t Mule’s version of Cortez the Killer blasting out of the speakers and it makes no difference to me that the Merason and Mojo Audio DACs sound a bit different from each other, all I can think of is how much I like listening to Warren Haynes and Gov’t Mule.
|
@soix - Not planning a big reveal at the end, but maybe a couple of comparison comments. I will mostly let the write-ups stand on their own. Regarding the Merason and LTA Aero, they are both DACs but otherwise somewhat apples and oranges. The Aero’s strengths are about drive and leading edge excitement while the Merason seems to be more about dense tone and fluidity. They both do a good job of playing music, and neither leaves anything out, but I would envision buyers would have quite different sonic priorities which would result in their selecting only one of those two DACs, but not both. Sonically, my preferences fall sort of in between the two but closer to the Merason than to the Aero. |
Sort of. The Mojo DACs and Aero are all R-2R DACs while the Merason is a hybrid Delta-Sigma, so there are fundamental differences in the conversion that are not surprisingly audible, IMO. The differences in the sound between the Mojos and Aero may be more related to power supply differences and output stage implementation. Yes, I do like the sound of the 3x more expensive Mojos better than the Aero - no shame there. |
@wig -Thanks for the cable list. I have never tried Grover Huffman cables of any type but I know many like them and believe they offer a good performance to price ratio. I have not gone too far down the road of digital cables but I have tried a few USB cables including Curious, Triode Wire Labs, Totaldac, and Network Acoustics Muon. Of those, the Totaldac seems more organic sounding while the NA Muon seems more incisive and detailed sounding but without any shrillness or fatiguing qualities. I am using TWL's AES/EBU cable and that seems to work/sound fine. Sonore wants me to try their USB cable but I have made more traction upgrading components rather than cables so I sort of stay middle of the road wrt digital cable choices. @cdc - I wouldn't say "last 2 or 5% in sound quality" as I believe these DACs have a larger sonic impact than that, and much more than the difference in servers. I have had several pretty good servers and none of them made a discernable sonic difference, although I did hear a big improvement in moving to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE streamer. That discussion gets messy because when you say "server" many believe you are talking about a server/streamer combination. The thing about DACs is they do sound quite different from each other and while one may not generally be significantly "better" than another, they definitely sound significantly different from each other. Most people seem to have a type of sound they like, and will choose a DAC that matches that type of sound and avoid DACs that provide a different type of sound. @bgross - There seems to be a small jam pile of DACs at around $4K. I had not heard of the Canor from Slovakia, which uses dual ESS Sabre chips and four tubes, but it has received several very positive reviews for how it sounds. Maybe somebody else with access should do a comparison of all the $4K DACs on the market. |
SMc AUDIO DAC-2 GT-24 SMc Audio DAC-2 GT-24 Reviews 6moons – SMc Audio – McCormack UltraDac, by Francis Baumli Conrad Johnson Owners – McCormack DAC-1, by eagle6014, 2015 Audio Asylum – McCormack DAC-1 by Ecruz, 2004 SMc Audio DAC-2 GT-24 SMc Audio is Steve McCormack and his associate Patrick Jeter, and my relationship with them goes back around 20 years, first as a tire-kicker, then as a client, and finally as a friend, which says a lot about how they work with all of their clients. I will call their customers “clients” because SMc Audio doesn’t simply sell stuff to people, but rather they work together with audio enthusiasts to understand their systems, sonic and musical preferences, and goals, and only then do they discuss which product or upgrade, and what level of upgrade, would fit best to meet the client’s goals and budget. Through this process, and especially if you go through it two or three times with them, it is hard not to call them friends since it is not only a pleasure to work with them on specific projects, but also a pleasure to simply talk with them and learn from their wealth of audio knowledge, hear about new upgrade paths, and share ideas. My first McCormack product was an old DNA-2 amplifier. A behemoth designed by Dave Reich of Theta fame. The balanced input didn’t work and even though I purchased it used, when I called SMc, Steve took the time to talk me through troubleshooting options and was upfront about what was probably wrong with the balanced inputs – a known issue. It turned out the solution was to simply use the single-ended inputs. Later, after selling that DNA-2, I became intrigued by the many positive testimonials from people who had their original McCormack Audio gear upgraded by SMc Audio. It seems the original McCormack Audio equipment mostly utilized thoughtful, functional, and effective design choices and, at least the amplification gear, was mostly limited in performance only by cost choices necessary to achieve desired price points. My first upgrade performed by SMc Audio was about 12 years ago when I sent them a McCormack TLC-1 (Transparent Line Control) preamp that Steve and Patrick then turned into something very special, and very close sounding to Steve’s extremely well-regarded (basically world-class) VRE-1 (Virtual Reality Engine) preamp, which is now in its VRE-1C iteration. The VRE-1 was introduced around 2008, not long before I had my preamp upgrade preformed, so Steve was able to use the knowledge and design choices resulting from years of perfecting his preamp vision, in crafting the upgrades that he used in my TLC-1 Signature Edition preamp. The upgraded TLC-1 sounds fantastic and, speaking of value, it has been in my system for the past 12 years with nothing I have tried even coming close to making me want to replace it. Steve and his original McCormack Audio company are best known for amplification products, so I next had them upgrade a DNA-2 amplifier and following that they built me a pair of monoblocks based on the McCormack DNA-1 amplifier platform. Pictures of those mono amps, along with a picture of my preamp, are shown on the SMc Audio website homepage. All I can say is that I happily replaced the amplifiers I owned at the time, and that sold for $17K (Clayton M300) and currently sell for $34K retail (Lamm M1.2 Reference), with those SMc Ultra G monoblocks, and I haven’t once regretted the decision. To my ears, all of the SMc Audio gear I have heard has an organic musicality that would cost stupid money to equal. The SMc AUDIO DAC-2 GT-24 began life as a McCormack DAC-1, which was first introduced in the heyday of McCormack Audio, sometime in the mid-1990s. There is not a single review of the SMc Audio DAC-1 GT-24, so I have posted a few reviews and write-ups of the original (non-upgraded) McCormack DAC-1, as well as a 6moons review of the very first upgraded DAC-1, called the SMc Audio UltraDac. If you read the reviews, the original DAC-1 was quite well-regarded, with reviewer John Johnson stating in 1995: “The SST-1, DAC-1, and Wonder Link cable, when used as a package, resulted in some of the most breathtaking CD sound we have ever heard. The upper registers were crisp, but without harshness of any kind. Steel string guitars are a good test for this, and the McCormack blazed through unscathed. Our planar-magnetic speakers just sang. The deep end was - well - as deep and tight as any we have heard, and better than most.” Audio Asylum poster Ecruz posted this in 2004 about a used DAC-1 he purchased: “when I threw the DAC 1 in to the mix, HOLY SMOKES! I don’t have to skill to describe in words how much better it sounded. It sounded like I bought a new cd player. Everything improved. The soundstage got bigger. The upper frequencies more extended AND less harsh. The low end more extended AND tighter. A much warmer, richer and more realistic sound. Dare I say, tubelike.” I included the Conrad Johnson Owner’s forum post because the thread includes a few nice pictures of the original McCormack DAC-1, including a shot of the insides. CJO forum poster eagle6014 said this in 2015: “As far as comparing this to other dac’s I’ve had, it sounds great. No complaints here, classic dac sound for my huge 80’s collection.” The 2009 review written by Francis Baumli about the SMc Audio UltraDac, and posted on 6moons, was incredibly positive about the sound of the upgraded DAC-1 and, along with my positive experiences with SMc Audio, was the reason I wanted to try their upgraded DAC. The pictures in the 6moons article indicated changes from the original DAC-1 in the power supply and output, but not too much with the conversion board. Baumli enthused over how good the UltraDac upgrade sounded to him, concluding the review with, “the SMc Audio Ultra DAC-1 is…better than any of the current competition.” In the words of Ned Pepper to Rooster Cogburn, “bold talk”. A year or two ago, I was able to pick up an old McCormack DAC-1 for cheap and had it shipped directly to SMc Audio. I certainly didn’t need another DAC and told them I was in no hurry for the upgrade but I was curious so I told them to “go ahead with the project when you have the time.” I was actually surprised when earlier this year I received a call from Patrick who said, “your DAC-2 GT-24 is finished.” He added, “I know it has been a while so if you no longer want it, we have other customers who would.” I told Patrick that I absolutely wanted it so “send it on over,” and I am glad that I did. The first thing I noticed is, wow, this thing weighs a ton! I was surprised to find they had used the gravity base that they used on my monoblocks, which is essentially a thick brass bottom plate that covers the entire bottom of the chassis and directly attaches to key components. The gravity base seems to give the sound “gravity” – just kidding, sort of. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that anchoring and mechanically grounding key components and boards to the heavy brass base imparts additional solidity and possibly the desirable acoustic attributes of brass. The second thing I noticed was the nice-looking appearance of the DAC-2 GT-24. Like all of the gear SMc Audio has upgraded for me, I asked for an upgraded faceplate with the SMc logo and I was not disappointed with the result. Finally, the name DAC-2 GT-24 is not the same as the “UltraDac” from the 6moons review, so I figured something must be different. When I looked at the pictures that Patrick sent to me of the insides of my DAC-2 GT-24, that are available to look at on my virtual system page, there seemed to be a whole lot more going on than what I expected from the pictures that were included in the 6moons review of the UltraDac. That is sort of par for the course when working with SMc Audio over the years. They continue to innovate and incorporate the new improvements they discover as they upgrade their client’s gear. In the pictures of my new DAC, I saw some cool stuff like a magnetic breaker on/off switch, a new white circuit board for the power supply, Jupiter copper foil capacitors, a large oil capacitor, Lundahl output transformers, a clean-looking layout, and nice-looking soldering work. The DAC-2 uses the same Crystal Semiconductor CS8412 "E" Version receiver and CS4328 DAC chip from the original DAC-1. Operationally, the DAC-2 inputs through either S/PDIF coax or Toslink optical. No USB or AES/EBU. I have tried both inputs and based on my listening, the coax input is sonically superior but the Toslink input still sounds good. Both single-ended and balanced outputs are provided and the connectors are first rate from Furutech. The DAC chip only supports 18 bits and sampling rates up to 48kHz so adjustments were needed in Roon to avoid glitches with tracks having higher sampling rates. When I first listened to the DAC-2 GT-24 I had the impression that music played through it sounded “alive”. I also perceived a natural, organic tonal quality similar to the Mojo Audio DACs, and smoothness similar to the Merason. This is an 8x oversampling Delta-Sigma DAC so, while operationally it is one of the more common DAC designs, it is different from the other DACs in my current comparisons. The Delta-Sigma DAC chip is probably closest to the Merason that uses a Delta-Sigma hybrid BB PCM1794A chip, and the Benchmark with its ESS Sabre ES9028PRO chip. The other three in the comparison are R-2R type DACs using chips by Analog Devices, an AD1865 in the LTA Aero and dual AD1862N chips in the Mojo DACs. To quote Benjamin Zwickel of Mojo Audio, “Delta-Sigma DACs, which comprise over 95% of the DAC chips sold today, do not actually “decode” the bit stream but rather "interpolate" it. They take in the digital bit stream faster than the music is playing, analyze it, noise shape it, error correct it, interpolate what they think the musical signal was supposed to look like, and then output a flawless waveform. Not quite the waveform which was quantized, but a very smooth and very even waveform. That is why Delta-Sigma DACs sound so smooth and refined. This is also why Delta-Sigma DACs have an advantage when playing mediocre sources such as music streamed from the internet.” As I read up on the old Crystal Semiconductor CS4328 chip used in the DAC-2, I learned it was considered a pretty good chip for its time and capable of converting digital into a good-sounding analog output. The specifications list the chip as having 18-bit resolution and a maximum 48 KHz sampling rate. It performs 8x oversampling digital interpolation followed by 64x oversampling, one-bit, delta-sigma modulation. It really is a vintage piece, but does that really matter? CDs are standardized at 16bit resolution and 44.1kHz sampling rate and most of what we listen to is essentially CD quality. As I ran through my test tracks, I kept thinking that I could happily live with the SMc DAC-2 GT-24. The tonal qualities were clear and natural sounding, reminiscent of what I remember from really good CD players. The sound was smooth in that there were no shrillness, roughness, or other undesirable digital sounding artifacts. At the same time, the DAC-2 was granular enough to capture the distinct texture of different vocalists, including breathiness, grittiness and raspiness as those qualities are present. Examples that were easily distinguishable through the DAC-2 included the intimate breathy quality of Dominique Fils-Amie’s vocals on Birds, Susan Tedeschi’s trademark rasp on Angel from Montgomery, and Warren Haynes signature growl on Gov’t Mule’s Thorazine Shuffle. Bass is solid through the DAC-2 and underpins the upper frequencies without getting in the way. The mids and high frequencies are appropriately proportioned and the entire presentation seems even-handed. If pressed, I would say the DAC-2 leans just a smidge to the sharper side of the curve and is perhaps just a touch lighter on its feet than I am used to with the Mojo Audio EVO Pro, or certainly with the Merason DAC1 MkII that has a sort of creamy lower midrange/upper bass warmth. However, I do not consider the result to be irritatingly detailed, or too focused on attack/leading edge, as I have heard with some equipment. I suspect this presentation from the SMc DAC-2 GT-24 I have described would likely hit the sweet spot for many audiophiles. Sound staging is similarly even-handed, with enough dimension to portray a realistic image of the positioning of singers and instrumentalists, but not so much as to seem overblown. Considering this is a DAC that most of you will never hear (I understand there are only 12 of them currently), I will stop the descriptions here, and conclude by saying that what Steve and Patrick have crafted is amazing considering their starting point with the older conversion technology. However, they are so good with power supplies, amplification, and output stages I am not really surprised that they were able to make this DAC sound great. The tonal qualities, texture, and natural sound from the SMc DAC-2 GT-24 make it certainly one of the more enjoyable DACs in this comparison, and one that I could happily live with in my main system. As a last thought, it has been my privilege to work with Steve and Patrick over the years. My trust in them to create great sounding audio gear that has brought me joy has been justified by their great work. Their many satisfied clients have benefitted from their passion for audio, commitment to continuing innovation and improvement, attention to detail, and unwavering concern for client satisfaction. Thank you, Steve and Patrick. |
@brbrock - SMc Audio uses chokes in their outboard “Power Station” for the VRE preamplifier, which is the same power supply they used for my TLC-1 SE. You can see a picture on page 4 of this review. |
@bgross - Here is a list to get you started on currently popular $4K’ish DACs you could compare. One is over the range and one below, but the others are pretty close to $4K.
|
I didn't include the Weiss DAC204 on my list below because of the low'ish price and because I haven't heard that much about it. I do however like the simplicity, and that you have a choice of 88.2 or 176.4 kHz sample rates, which are multiples of 44.1, instead of the more typical 48kHz and 96kHz. I did look up Michael Lavorgna's review at Twittering Machines and thought his comment below regarding the Weiss DAC204 compared to his totaldac d1 unity was a good description of one of the main differences I often (but not always) hear when comparing moderately priced gear with much more expensive gear, and also answers a question that often arises on this forum being, what do you get for more money? As he implies, even little differences can affect the level of listening enjoyment. He wrote:
|