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.
@curiousjim- Sonore have been doing this for awhile now, an optical cable directly feeds the streamer, which is called their Signature Rendu SE Deluxe (optical). SGC is a good place to buy one or, directly from Sonore. I started using optical cable for my 45-foot run from my network room to my system room for a couple of years now (by using converter boxes) but I have been using the Sig Rendu SE optical for just under a year. This new one is fully updated to their latest version (more than just a firmware upgrade).
The sound is clear and smooth, but also full, natural, and with good body - light years from mechanical.
The Sig Rendu SE Deluxe is their flagship one box PS plus streamer board but the real bargain is virtually the same streamer board w/o onboard PS (ultra Rendu) for only $1K, or $1,600 for the optical version. Many are perfectly happy using that smaller version to stream, or as a streamer following a dedicated server. I can’t say how much better the one box SE Deluxe is for between 3x-4x the price, but I wouldn’t go back in my main system, because that streamer plus my SGC sonicTransporter i9 (Gen 4) gives me as good a digital signal as I have heard in my system. SGC and/or Sonore also sell a high quality optical converter and a switch with both Ethernet and one optical connection to help people switch over to using optical signal transmission.
BTW all, I am still curious to hear a Holo Audio May KTE, and also a totaldac unity and would add write-ups on those DACs if I had the chance.
If any Holo May KTE or totaldac owners out there are interested hearing a Mojo Audio DAC and would be willing to loan/swap DACs for a month (one of my Mojo DACs for a May or totaldac) with no cost except each of us pays shipping/insurance each time we ship, let me know.
I am listening to a new/upgraded Sonore Signature Rendu SE Deluxe Optical today - long name but great product and great people to work with for customer satisfaction.
@trentgordon- Thanks for the update. It sounds like either choice is a win. Interesting that you were able to change the sound of the Aero with different tubes. I believe Michael Lavorgna at Twittering Machines was planning to post a Part 2 to his Aero review after trying some tube rolling. It seems that many are interested in DAC comparisons at that $4K price point.
I've been demoing the LTA Aero and Mojo Mystique Y in my system this last week and thought I'd share my early impressions.
System is Roon Nuc - Ifi Zen Stream w/ elite LPS - DAC - Luxman l509x - Spendor D9.2.
I previously had a Lumin T2. I don't think it synergized well with the spendor Ds and luxman. It was too detailed and analytical for me for speakers which already lean a touch that direction for my tastes. On some advice on another thread, I decided to try a couple r2r DACs.
Both of these DACs completely changed the system for me. Albums I previously thought were poor recordings revealed by my revealing system are now enjoyable. There is more weight, organic richness, tone and life to the music. I could happily live with either one. Its going to be difficult to decide.
I swapped tubes in the Aero to the Ray Tubes Reserve 6sn7. That changed the character of the Aero and made me realize how tube rolling can influence the sound. The 6sn7 toned down some of the incisive zippy nature of the Aero and gave more tonal richness, lifelike insight into the music. I've also been trying a Cary SLP-05 tube preamp into the separates input on the luxman which is pure magic. The Aero with stock tubes straight into the Luxman gave perhaps 30% of the tube magic vs including the Cary in the chain. The Ray Tubes Reserve 6sn7 gets me 70% of the tube magic while retaining more of the drive and solidity of the Luxman preamp. The aero with the 6sn7s into the luxman I would describe as spacious, detailed, insightful, organic, rich, airy and alive. The band sounds in my room vs listening to a great recording. Acoustic and jazz shines.
The Mojo also sounds fantastic and swapping back and forth between the Aero and also including the Cary preamp it's difficult to nail down a clear winner. The Mojo is smooth, dense, very composed and clear. The soundstage is a touch narrower but more dense. It is even handed. It also has similar giddieup to the Aero with the 6sn7 tubes (although not as much as the stock tubes which want to boogie). I seemed to like the Mojo best relative in comparison to the Aero with more produced music like Abbey Road or an Eryka Badu album.
At this point I'm leaning towards the Aero with the upgraded tubes and sticking with the Luxman vs going tube pre / ss power amp. It gives me some of the tube magic while keeping the setup simpler and it sounds fantastic. Its a tough call though, the Mojo also is a lovely DAC. I have more listening to do. Thanks to all the folks on this forum sharing their experience. Really happy with how things are sounding over here.
OP… “but something that requires the reader to be more sensitive to the words written and sometimes “read between the lines” to identify both negative as well as positive aspects of the equipment being reviewed.”.
Just in case this isn’t obvious to anyone… this very true and critical to understand reviews. If you are sensitive to this then professional reviews are very very valuable. I have been reading The Absolute Sound and Stereophile since they began… and they are great sources of information. Damned by faint praise is a big reality. I don’t hold it against reviewer for not being really direct… but most are very obvious about shortcomings. High end audio is about subtitles, and it starts with reading.
As the owner of a recently purchased Mojo-Audio X SE I agree with comments regarding it's sound signature. I don't have the Z chips or the nano-crystalline (NC) chokes but even so the sound is full and engaging. I don't agree with difference being incremental though. My previous DAC was the PSAudio MK1 and the MHDT Orchid before that and each provided a significant upgrade to the sound from the previous. That said I was happy with each one of them until I heard the upgraded component.
I wish I had your talent to express what I'm hearing but I'm pretty much tied to "Mojo good, sound like". There was so much work involved in this post I just want to say Thank You
Thanks for your reply. I have the original Benchmark DAC 1. Reviews said the DAC 2 was warmer and more "musical" than the 1, and the DAC 3 was getting back to the DAC 1 tonal balance. Actually, don't laugh, I prefer my old Sony CD player alone compared to the Sony digital out going to the Bench 1. The latter is smoother, warmer compared to the Sony alone. So the Sony is actually more raw and brighter than when used with the Bench. Both the Sony and Bench 1 are old products, but the Sony is even older. I have to admit that the raw quality of the Sony is a detriment, but the sound is tighter and leaner. I suspect that the additional interconnect cable (the old Illuminati from Chris Sommerwerk) and added analog gain stage electronics in the Bench 1 probably is adding some veil. Many people have claimed that the ultimate performance is from a complete CD player vs transport + DAC, although my limited experience is insufficient to evaluate this.
As a performing violinist in orchestra and chamber music, what excites me is close up detail and HF extension. By comparison any audience seat reveals much less detail and overall clarity. I know your preferences are far different from mine, but I have learned much from your careful comparisons. That makes you a skillful observer and writer. Your integration of published reviews (which are usually biased) with your honest personal observations is a model of great reporting. Most media in audio and other matters cannot be trusted.
@viber6- The Tambaqui is a very good sounding DAC and based on my time with it, more refined sounding and enjoyable to listen to than the Benchmark, which is still a bargain at it's price. However, just because they both measure well, doesn't mean they sound the same. I could live with the Tambaqui in my main system but I prefer the more organic, textural, presentation of the Mojo DACs as well as the richer, fuller, and more relaxed sounding presentation from the Merason.
The one I would still like to hear is the HoloAudio May DAC that John Atkinson reviewed, measured, and described as follows. "In almost every way, the HoloAudio May (Level 3) is the best-measuring D/A processor I have encountered, rivaled only by the Weiss DAC502 and MBL N31." Regarding the sound, he said, "The HoloAudio May (Level 3) is one of the best-sounding D/A processors I have tried." If it is really that good, it should be an absolute bargain at it $5,600 price, for the KTE version. I simply have not heard it and therefore cannot say one way or the other.
Many thanks for your excellent and even-handed reviews of these DAC’s, quite an undertaking. If you ever need a side gig you could join the glamorous world of audio reviewers.
@mitch2Your results correlate with previous reviews I've seen for most of these dacs. Really appreciate the greater detail and comparative nature of your review vs previous I've seen. Of these dacs, the Mojo's have long been on my list of 'want to hear' dacs, your more thorough reviews of these dacs have increased my interest.
One thing I'd take issue is“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.”,
Don't have issue with the technical aspect of explanation, issue is with the generalization of delta sigma dacs as smooth. Based on my ownership of numerous delta sigma dacs, and extensive number of reviews of these dacs delta sigma dacs most often described as incisive, extremely detailed, the complete opposite of smooth. R2R dacs are most often described as quite the opposite of delta sigma, these described as most natural, easy going, relaxed. And this is what I hear with my Laiv Harmony vs Musetec's and previous delta sigma. And I don't mean to suggest delta sigma can't be refined, its simply the characterization of being smooth. IME delta sigma dacs get their bad reputation from masses of cheap Chinese dacs that measure well and sound cold and clinical.
Regarding the attributes of pristine clarity and detail from low freq to high freq, do you rate Tambaqui as objectively superior to the Benchmark? I am not asking about your subjective preference. I value maximum information retrieval. Thanks.
Ok, time to pick a winner - just kidding, but it is time to stick a fork in this.
Something I learned during this DAC comparison is that good sounding equipment can be achieved in many forms, through many different design choices. Also, not everybody is going to like the same thing. Look at the Tambaqui as an example. Many would rank it in the upper echelons of available DACs. It was essentially perfect but I found the presentation to be a little too pristine, too clean, with a little too much upper frequency detail for my tastes. No right or wrong, it just depends on the sound you like to hear, not unlike the six DACs I compared, which would each have their fans. Hats off to the designers and manufacturers that gave us their vision of good sound through these DACs. Each of the DACs in this comparison was a “flagship” for the manufacturer, five of them are current models, and all of them sounded good.
After living with R-2R DACs from Metrum Acoustics and Mojo Audio over the past 5 years, I still found myself drawn to the Merason DAC1 MkII with its hybrid BB PCM1792A chip. To my ears, it is so very close to the Mojo Audio DACs, in the areas of rich tonality, solid bass, and harmonic weight (i.e., full-bodied and powerful). It is also smoother sounding than any of the other five DACs, followed closely by the SMc DAC. However, even though it sounds really good, I consider it just shy of pushing either of the two Mojo Audio DACs aside as my favorites. My best effort to describe the differences would be to say the Mojo Audio DACs provide more organic texture and granularity compared to the Merason DAC, which sounds smoother and more relaxed. My level of enjoyment from the two Mojo Audio DACs and the Merason DAC is very similar, and I tend to enjoy whichever of the three I am listening to at the time.
The differentiator in my preferences is possibly described by a long-time forum poster under user name georgehifi, who commented on Herb Reichert’s Stereophile review of the Mojo Audio Mystique X SE. Reichert concluded his review by stating:
"The Mystique X SE produced a unique, sophisticated listening experience that presented digital recordings as beautiful, probing, and engaging."
Georgehifi followed up by posting:
“Same happens to me every time I listen to a "good R2R dac", ya just can’t beat em, even if "some" of JA’s measurements are disappointing, as is the cost, there is something that is just fundamentally "right" with R2R Ladder doing PCM conversion, that Delta Sigma misses out on.”
However, it is my understanding the two hybrid BB PCM1792A chips in the Merason DAC1 MkII do not provide a straight Delta-Sigma conversion. Benjamin Zwickel at Mojo Audio explained it like this:
“The BB PCM1792A chips are what is called a "segmented R-2R"…To me segmented DAC chips sound halfway between R-2R and single-bit Delta-Sigma DAC chips…sort of smoothed over by the algorithms.”
So, digital conversion in the Merason is somewhere between R-2R and Delta-Sigma. That seems to correspond with what I am hearing. IOW, I shouldn’t be surprised that I would both enjoy how it sounds and also perceive an additional smoothness compared to the R-2R DACs. I plan to continue acclimating to the sound of the Merason and occasionally reevaluate how it stacks up against the other DACs.
With respect to the remaining three DACs in the comparison, my next favorite for sure is the SMc Audio DAC-2 GT-24, which has great tonal qualities and is pretty good at everything else. I view it as just a touch behind the Mojos and the Merason. The differences are nuances, such as a little additional energy in the high frequencies from the SMc DAC-2, while I perceive the Mojo and Merason DACs to have just a little more flesh and body. While these differences are small, they are noticeable to me in a direct comparison. Regardless, I could be perfectly happy living with the SMc DAC-2 in my main system, and I wouldn’t have noticed those subtle areas for improvement except in direct comparison with the other DACs.
The Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC is no longer here so it is a bit harder to recap. The Aero, as I remember it, was all about energy, with good tone and body. It was a great sounding DAC at its price point, and above, but its sonic presentation simply did not match my tastes to the level of the other DACs, for the reasons discussed in my write-up.
Finally, I appreciate the accomplishment that is the Benchmark DAC3 HGC. Those exceptional measurements, and good sound, at such a low price, opens up the world of high-end audio DACs to buyers operating with a smaller budget. However, the DAC3 is sort of a conundrum in that I cannot point to anything specifically wrong with how it sounds yet it simply doesn’t engage me to the same level as the other DACs in this comparison. I plan to keep it around and use it in my outdoor system where having a DAC with a volume control will simplify things.
Thank you readers for your patience throughout this process and especially to those who shared encouragement and kind words.
While researching information about each of the DACs I compared, I came to appreciate the reviewers who authored the reviews that I linked with my write-ups. No different from my comments in this thread, none of them are a “final authority” on audio subjects or the particular objects of their reviews, and readers should be careful not to mistake a review for fact. Reviews are more like editorials, which are basically opinions, and inherently slanted toward the proclivity, or bias, of the reviewer.
One commonality to most reviews seems to be a reluctance by the reviewer to overstate weaknesses in the gear under review. IMO, this is not a failing of the review, but something that requires the reader to be more sensitive to the words written and sometimes “read between the lines” to identify both negative as well as positive aspects of the equipment being reviewed. It is almost impossible for someone, such as a reviewer, to pick winners and losers for somebody else, any more than I can tell you what type of coffee you like. In other words, just because a reviewer says something sounds “great” doesn’t necessarily mean you will agree when you hear it in your system. On the other side of that coin, just because the reviewer finds some aspect of the subject equipment to sound off, not to their liking, or deficient in some way, doesn’t mean everyone will view it the same.
I believe most reviewers are sensitive to the potential impact their words have on consumer purchases and the resulting tangible financial impact that can have on manufacturers. Therefore, most are at least careful not to overplay possible negatives that may be reflective of their personal preferences as to how something should sound.
In short, take any review with a grain of salt, whether professionally published or simply posted in a forum. There are so many things that can affect a reviewer’s impression of a specific product, such as partnering equipment, the room, the music they listen to, and the bias of the reviewer to a certain type of sound. Therefore, read reviews for informational purposes but whenever possible listen to the gear (preferably in your own system) and decide for yourself what you like or don’t like.
@mitch2Many, many and many thanks for your incredibly detailed reviews of all these DACs! Truly a gift to us all as mentioned above. I was very interested and leaning towards upgrading to the LTA Aero but after reading your reviews I pulled the trigger on buying a used Mojo Mystique Evo. Wow what a nice sounding DAC just as you reviewed. Very happy with my choice and extremely appreciative of you spending your time and expertise to help us understand the performance of these DACs. Threads like these are so helpful to less seasoned audio addicts and the reason I follow Audiogon. Cheers!
Based on my research the Mojo dacs have the technology to be top tier, chokes in power supply, nude Vishay resistors, I use both choked linear power supply for some of my streaming components and nude Vishay in my present 300B amps, have used them in my previous Art Audio 845 amp and a totally modded dac. Both provide an easily heard upgrade over commonplace cap based PS and resistors. Totaldacs should also be top tier, very impressive technology there as well.
One thing I find curious is Linear Tube Audio rather agnostic take on digital inputs. I've always been of a mind that I2S should provide best sound quality with ladder dacs. Still, gets very nice reviews. I've yet to try I2S with my Laiv Harmony so I'm just surmising at this point (only usb at this point).
@mitch2 When I read comments about the Holo Audio May and the Terminator II DAC's they seem to be bested by the Mojo Audio DAC's and the AYRE QX-5 twenty DAC. Now I'm not sure which level of May DAC they are comparing but most seem to have the KTE. With the May DAC you get two DAC's in one. Several talk about running the may with HQ player. With the Ayre it comes with a streamer and volume control. You can also upgrade your Ayre QX-5 twenty as technology improves. I have talked to Ayre and they have said sound improves slightly when adding a good preamp. They also have an AC conditioner that they build that improves the sound. When I read the comparisons of other DAC I am not sure if they are streaming to the network bridge or if they have a separate streamer.
@mitch2- Thanks for your work on these reviews. I sound myself eagerly waiting the next review like a favorite installment of a radio or tv program. I’m intrigued by the Mojo dacs now!
"...a true gift. . ." , indeed -- if only professional reviewers were as comprehensive!
@stuartk Amen Brother! This is precisely why I’ve called out TAS reviews (and most Euro rags) as being lazy and bogus as they rarely bother to compare a review component to anything. Not only does this make the review less helpful/informative, it also insulates the reviewer from any accountability for their observations and conclusions. Easier/faster for the reviewer and the magazine gets to crank out more reviews faster, but the benefits for the reader are greatly diminished. Big pet peeve, and what’s worse, many times they don’t even mention the equipment in the reviewer’s system so we’re left just guessing all around. Argh! Ok, end of rant.
In the next day or two, I will post a short “wrap” on how the six DACs ultimately compare with each other, at least in my world, and then I will be done unless I get questions.
HA! You’ll undoubtedly get myriad questions, but I for one will just accept your insightful and honest thoughts/insights for what they are and in the helpful context in which they’re given. And comparing how all the DACs compare to each other is truly a Herculean task that goes above and beyond in terms of effort and adds immeasurably to its ultimate applicability and usefulness here. Most of us — at least the better informed/experienced I think — will be able to read between the lines and glean much from all the good work, time, and effort you’ve put forth here, and I thank you from the bottom of my audiophile heart for all that you’ve done to make all of us DAC-curious types all that much smarter. Your thread here is a true gift to all of us IMO.
@brbrock- at $3,959 the Musetec DA 006 should be a direct competitor for market share with Mojo’s Mystique Y that “starts” at $4K.
In the next day or two, I will post a short “wrap” on how the six DACs ultimately compare with each other, at least in my world, and then I will be done unless I get questions.
The DACs I would have added if I had access were the Denafrips Terminator (latest version) and Holo May KTE. I haven’t heard either. The DAC that I would like to hear to satisfy my own curiosity is the Totaldac, probably the version Lavorgna has. If it is as good as some say, I would sell the others and buy one. In the meantime, there are a couple here that sound good enough for me.
Mitch thanks for your work on the review. I would love it if someone who has heard the new Musetec DA 005 or DA 006 compared to some of the Mojo Audio DAC's.
The Mojo Audio Mystique X SE NCZ, is their flagship X SE DAC that has been upgraded with nanocrystalline (NC) chokes, and “Z” designated DAC chips. I believe this is the best DAC Mojo Audio offers at this time. The current top DAC is called the Mystique X ’24, which I believe is the same DAC available with either ferrous (FE), amorphous (AM), or nanocrystalline (NC) choke choices. The main difference between the X ’24 and the DAC I have here is that the AD1862NZ chips are no longer available.
If you have read my write-up on the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro DAC earlier in this thread (9-14-24 @ 1:12pm), then you know how much I have enjoyed listening to the five different Mojo Audio DACs I have owned. The Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro DAC has been my reference in my main system for a couple of years now, and I even chose to keep that DAC over Mojo Audio’s Mystique X SE DAC, when I originally owned both of them.
Creation of the Mojo Audio Mystique X line was a necessity brought on by the events of 2020/21 that resulted in supply chain disruptions, and shortages of parts and materials. Prior to that, Mojo Audio’s Mystique EVO Pro was their former flagship DAC, and the highest version of their Mystique EVO line of DACs. Mojo Audio originally had plans to further upgrade the EVO line, and possibly offer an even higher-level version of the EVO using BB PCM63 DAC chips. Difficulties procuring key parts, including the specially coated aluminum chassis used on the EVO series, caused Mojo Audio to cease production of the EVO line (although it is fully supported) and travel a different path.
The goal, in the words of Mojo Audio’s owner and designer, Benjamin Zwickel (Benjamin), was to create a “a lower cost alternative with similar performance” to the EVO line. This would be accomplished by using more readily available parts, different design choices, and less labor-intensive manufacturing processes. The new DAC design would be housed in an extruded chassis that requires less aluminum than the EVO chassis, utilize PCB mounted connectors, use a lower number of Belleson regulators, and ideally the product would have been robotically assembled instead of 100% hand built.
Improvements incorporated into the X DAC line included the inclusion of a USB input cut-off switch, the use of better parts in key areas such as ultra-fast, ultra-low noise zero-recovery SiC (Silicon Carbide) Schottky rectification diodes, and new anti-resonant treatments. If you want specific details about the development of the X line of DACs, search the Audiogon forums for posts by Mojo Audio’s owner and designer, Benjamin Zwickel (aka. Fuzzbutt17 on Audiogon).
The end result was that Mojo Audio released a new line of DACs in 2022 designated Mystique X (for extruded chassis). Somewhat surprisingly, the initial feedback by most listeners was that the new Mystique X line sounded better than the former top dog, Mystique EVO Pro. Benjamin shared the following observations about comparisons to the EVO Pro:
“Even though the Mystique X uses the identical circuit and nearly identical parts to our Mystique EVO, due to the new chassis typology, shielding, and anti-resonance, the Mystique X has a notably lower noise floor than any DAC we’ve ever offered. As you lower noise floor you not only reveal low-level details which were formerly masked by noise, you expand dynamic range. The Mystique X has insane micro-dynamics.”
And,
“To my ear they [Mystique EVOs] sound a bit slower, softer, and a bit vague when compared to our Mystique X.”
Benjamin’s post in this thread on 09-15-24 provides more detail.
The Mystique X SE is the upscale version of the Mystique X. The DAC that is the subject of this write-up includes nano-crystalline (NC) chokes and special AD1862N-Z chips, which were reportedly produced back in the day for higher level Dennon CD players, but are unfortunately no longer to Mojo Audio. The Mystique X SE NCZ DAC had an original retail price of $12,499. The current Mystique X ‘24 is available with NC chokes (but not Z-chips) at a retail list price of $9,999.
Ok, so how does it sound? There is something I like about the Mojo Audio DACs that I don’t quite hear from other DACs that I have owned or tried in my system which, including those listed here, include Metrum Acoustics’ Pavane and Adagio, Aqua Acoustic’s La Scala Mk II, and Ayre’s QB-9 DSD. Benjamin would probably say this is related to how Mojo Audio’s R-2R DACs display the true time, tune, tone, and timbre of the original musical performance.
Without going too deep into detail, on song after song of my test tracks the Mystique X SE NCZ did indeed display something special in the way it reproduced dynamics and harmonics that give music energy. Both female and male vocals were rich, full, and resonant. The instruments playing sounded as intended, with no absence of body or detail. The relative amplitude of each instrument was consistent with the performance, which helps lock in the staging, and the ability to instantly go from soft to loud made music exciting to listen to regardless of the playback level. As I said of the LTA Aero, “that… [ability to sound exciting at any volume level] is not an easy trick to pull off but it does enhance the engagement level of listening to recorded music in your home”.
I decided to play some of my test tracks at a relatively high volume, centered around 80dB +/- on my Decibel X app. On "Birds", by Dominique Fils-Aime’, the bass was subterranean, without any blurring of detail, and without affecting the mid or high frequencies. The Mystique X SE NCZ has the ability to enhance the dimensionality of players and singers, sort of like the LTA Aero did when it was here, but without sounding forced in any way, and with a greater level of refinement. This level of energy deviates a bit from the comparatively more relaxed sound I have become used to from the EVO Pro but doesn’t take away from the realistic sound of each instrument playing on "The Girl from Ipanema" and especially the dynamic sounds from Getz’ saxophone, which sounded so very real, and Astrud Gilberto’s innocent, breathy sounding vocals (amazingly, this was her first professional session in a studio – here is an interesting but sort of sad read).
Susan Tedeschi has incredible vocal control and does an amazing job of using tone, pitch, and amplitude to display passion and emotion. Through the X SE NCZ her vocals on "Angel from Montgomery" were on full display, as well as Jason Crosby’s fiddle and the rest of her band that night in Austin, Texas.
I neglected to adjust the volume control as the test tracks were playing and ended up listening to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" at 90+dB! No breakup, no fuzziness, scratchiness, or other nasties whatsoever. The X SE NCZ simply delivered what was on the recording with everything in its place, it was just louder. Same with Gov’t Mule’s Thorazine Shuffle. The Mystique X SE NCZ simply plays music, whatever genre you choose to play at whatever volume you choose to listen at.
The last ground I will cover in this write-up is the most difficult - how does the Mystique X SE NCZ compare to my Mystique EVO Pro? When I first owned the Mystique X SE (non-NCZ) I enjoyed both that DAC and the EVO Pro but ultimately chose to keep the EVO Pro and sell the X SE. After purchasing the Mystique X SE NCZ earlier this year, I posted a mini-review and comparison between that and my EVO Pro on Audiogon (mitch2, June 29). After re-reading that post, I could not find anything significant that I would change. To summarize, IMO:
The Mystique EVO Pro Z has a sweeter, fuller sound compared to the Mystique X SE NC Z, which I found more incisive, impactful, and a touch more detailed.
I perceived the Mystique X SE NC Z as being more dimensional (articulate positioning of musicians) while the Mystique EVO Pro Z was more homogeneous (musicians in the mix).
The Mystique EVO Pro Z seemed to have slightly more fluid and sweeter high frequencies while the Mystique X SE NC Z seemed more precise and energetic (although neither are what I would consider edgy).
Both have relatively powerful bass with the Mystique EVO Pro Z sounding big/full in the bass frequencies, while the bass from the Mystique X SE NC Z seems a bit more impactful and defined.
Based on my time with the non-NCZ version of the X SE, I believe there are benefits to the NC chokes and Z chips as I recall a slightly dryer presentation from the non-NCZ version, that I do not perceive with the X SE NCZ or with the EVO Pro.
In summary, the reviewers universally love this DAC, and I suspect most audiophiles would find the Mystique X SE NCZ to be a good blend of drive, dimension, tone, smoothness and richness. I find the Mystique EVO Pro Z to deliver all of that while trading off a bit of drive, incisiveness, and pinpoint dimensioning for a richer tone and a bit sweeter, maybe more forgiving, presentation. These differences are not monumental and my observations above do not seem to be wholely inconsistent with Benjamin’s statement that the Mystique EVOs “sound a bit slower, softer, and a bit vague when compared to our Mystique X.”
I appreciated the comparison by Dr. Matthew Clott who has also reviewed both the Mystique EVO Pro* and the Mystique X SE, for Enjoy the Music, and who said:
“The Mojo Mystique Evo (Pro)* is not the most resolving, not the most dynamic, certainly not the most recognized, not the warmest, and not the most expensive. What it is, is one of the most musical, engaging, flexible, bulletproof DAC’s I’ve heard at any price....There’s virtually nothing to dislike, and a whole lot to fall in love with.”
And,
“The X evolution has improved upon the level of resolution, low-frequency harmonic coherency, reduced noise floor, and turned up the level of emotional involvement another notch.”
* Dr. Clott originally wrote his Enjoy the Music review of the older Mystique EVO DAC believing it was the Mystique EVO B4B but later found out the DAC he reviewed was actually an EVO Pro.
Karl Sigman also reviewed both the Mystique EVO Pro and Mystique X SE (non-NCZ) for Audiophilia, and said:
“With a significantly smaller size and weight, and a significant increase in sound quality that reveals hidden gems even in 16/44.1 files, while retaining the unique and special sound quality of Mojo Audio’s Mystique DACS, the Mojo Audio Mystique X SE is a gem itself; it is addictive. A must-hear DAC.”
So, which of the two do I like best? Based on my extended head-to-head comparison between my Mystique EVO Pro and Mystique X SE NCZ, I cannot deny the X SE NCZ is the more impactful sounding DAC. It displays all the positive traits of the EVO Pro, while also exhibiting a bit more of that realistic “you are there” impression. As I have said previously, they are both clearly cut from the same cloth, as you would expect with two DACs that use very similar design choices and parts, and they both sound great. I could easily live with either but if I had to choose only one DAC for my main system it would be the Mystique X SE NCZ.
Yes; of course. I wasn't asking for buying advice, if that's how it seemed.
Other times, it occurs when the entire system reaches an equilibrium where all the components and speakers are equitable from a price/performance relationship and the result sounds good enough to be enjoyable without further upgrading. When a system achieves that level of equilibrium, one further upgrade may set into motion the need for another whole round of upgrades until the equilibrium is achieved again. Finally however, some are never satisfied and continue to chase their personal vision of the "absolute sound."
I can't disagree with any of this. For a variety of reasons, "good enough" is good enough for me!
"We are talking about the law of diminishing returns here, no?"
I would not argue with that. IME, the relationship between cost vs. performance is more logarithmic than linear. As you move along the curve, it begins to take more money to achieve smaller gains. However, from my post yesterday, I quoted reviewer Michael Lavorgna, "While this difference wasn’t huge in ultimate terms, I find when I’m in the listening zone even minor differences can be important." I agree with his point that for some, it may be worth the extra money to achieve certain specific, small to moderate sonic improvements.
The trick IMO is to figure out your personal, "good enough". Sometimes that limit where a system is "good enough" is defined solely by one’s wallet. Other times, it occurs when the entire system reaches an equilibrium where all the components and speakers are equitable from a price/performance relationship and the result sounds good enough to be enjoyable without further upgrading. When a system achieves that level of equilibrium, one further upgrade may set into motion the need for another whole round of upgrades until the equilibrium is achieved again. Finally however, some are never satisfied and continue to chase their personal vision of the "absolute sound."
"Just to be clear. I’m not in any way denigrating or doubting what the more costly DACs offer. I’m merely wondering whether choosing a 4K DAC, I’d actually be aware something was "missing". There’s obviously only one way to find out."
Only you can make that decision for you. Of the DACs I have compared, I have no doubt many will be perfectly happy with the LTA Aero DAC and many others are already happy with the Benchmark DAC3. However, out of the group, and in my world, the top three are ahead of the rest. Although I could live with all of them, I prefer the two Mojo Audio DACs and the Merason, which has really continued to impress me. Of those three, I will not keep more than two. The SMc Audio DAC, which I will be keeping, is not far behind the three mentioned but will probably not make it into my main system except as an occasional visitor, simply because I enjoy the others just a little bit more.
You describe the difference between the less costly and more costly dacs in terms of a "bit" of this, a "bit" of that.
I’m wondering how good a system must be to reveal these small differences.
We are talking about the law of diminishing returns here, no?
Just to be clear. I’m not in any way denigrating or doubting what the more costly DACs offer. I’m merely wondering whether choosing a 4K DAC, I’d actually be aware something was "missing". There’s obviously only one way to find out.
Not interested in any of these DAC’s, as I am happy with mine, but really admire and appreciate your obviously many hours of hard work (and fun?) in comparing these units @mitch2.
@mitch2Thanks for sharing the link to that power supply. That is the first time I have seen a picture. That is definitely not the base level power supply. I know the base level external power supply doesn't come with chokes. The nice thing about the external power supplies is that they can be easily upgraded just by having another sent. Same goes with the future models of the Mojo Audio DAC's. I think that is definitely the way to go.
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:
"Finely detailed and as sweet as honey, the Weiss DAC204 proved to be more than up to the level of refinement this system has to offer and the main difference I noted between the $2895 Weiss and the > $12k totaldac d1-unity was one of body and weight—the totaldac imbued music with a greater sense of dimensional structure making everything sound a bit more full figured, more fully formed and fleshy. While this difference wasn’t huge in ultimate terms, I find when I’m in the listening zone even minor differences can be important."
" 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. "
" You can get a custom amp, preamp or DAC made and it is a very fun and unique experience. You are a part of the build by choosing exactly how it will be built out. The quality of the build and equipment surpasses the price by far. "
Both of these statements are closely related to my own experiences had to produce the system in use today.
845 Power Amps are commission built by an EE almost 25 Years ago, who prior to this during the 90's the same EE, had built for me a Stereo Power Amp', a Pre-Amp' and Phonostage. Today the same EE who is a friend, in the sense they get an annual bottle of their favourite Tipple sent as a gift at the New Year, is converting the 845's to be a Balanced Input.
One owned Phon' and DAC in use today, both use Valves and are both Commission Built, where I was involved with the Phon' from conception through to finalising the design.
The other Phon' in use, is produced as a working model for myself by the designer of this Phon'.
The TT and Tonearm are both quite different from their original designs, where the modifications are undertaken by a individual recognised in the UK for their acquired skills for such delicate treatments. The individual who has undertaken this work is today a friend and is visited on occasions during the year, with plenty of phone calls shared as well.
The Speakers are fully overhauled and modernised, by a UK leading Service for Quad ESL 57's.
Moving away from the mainstream supply of Audio Equipment has helped myself, become acquainted with individuals who are willing to assist with educating a inquisitive mind, additionally to this, a system is now produced that is uniquely Bespoke, and has proved to be a system that is very much enjoyed for the discernible qualities it presents, by myself and others who get to spend time listening to it.
At present the system is limited to being a CDT > DAC source only.
Whoa...I don't have time for that, lol. I bought the Canor after demoing the Mearson Reuss and Weiss 204. I would need to stick to my experience with those three.
@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.
@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.
@mitch2 That was a great write up. Patrick at SMC Audio is great to work with. You can get a custom amp, preamp or DAC made and it is a very fun and unique experience. You are a part of the build by choosing exactly how it will be built out. The quality of the build and equipment surpsasses the price by far. Mojo Audio and SMC seem to take the same approach with their builds. The internals seem to be pretty simple but the parts are very high quality. I would love to see if Patrick could use another DAC chip that would allow streaming from TIDAL etc. without downsampling. I would also be curious if they could add an external power supply to the DAC like they do their amps and preamps. I know they can also add chokes in the power supplies as an upgrade to the external power supplies.
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.
@stuartkI've been considering the Reuss. I'm curious what, specifically, you'd hope to improve by moving up to the DAC1MK ll.
I love the Reuss and at this time I am not considering a change. The sound is very addicting and I just want to keep listening. I have compared it in my system to an Yggdrasil MIB and the original Merason DAC1. I liked it much better than the Yggy, and my previous DAC was a Gungnir, and in comparison to the DAC1 Mk I, I and a friend of mine who did the same test in his system, found the Reuss to be more refined. That’s the term we both agreed was the best description of the difference. As for upgrading to the DAC1 MkII, my thoughts are that it would offer a similar sound, but again, more refined than the Reuss. I have had two people that have heard both say that the DAC1 MkII, might be overly refined and I might like the Reuss better. Not sure what too much refinement would mean, just one of those things that I would have to try and see if I like it. For my tastes, at this time, the Reuss is wonderful DAC.
@mitch2maybe I'll be that guy? As soon as I spend some REAL time with the Canor I'll toss up some comments. It's funny, I went & listened to it, spoke with the guys at the shop who by the way couldn't have been more chill, and I left with one, lol. The 2.10 was incredible in their listening area but the real test was at home in my own system. It was outstanding right out of the box but my weakness, a NOS tube fixation, got the best of me and I leaned hard into a vintage 6922 upgrade. The reviews are spot on by the way which is what drove me to want experience it
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
