Must include the SMSL SUX and Gustard A26... these $1000 Chinese made DACs totally outperform 10X more expensive DACs made in USA or UK.
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.
162 responses Add your response
As with all dacs your perception may be a bit different then mine . Personally I feel the T+A200 dac at $7400:the best value in a high end dac I Sell the Very good. Denafrips New Generation -15 dacs ,not just an upgrade line of Dacs, these will meet and or exceed anything in their price class ,.Holo springs makes a good product , for Tube dacs Lampizators upper end is very good which I have owned , Aqua also make a solid product ,.
|
@brbrock - Check out my write-up on the Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro Z that I posted on 9-14-24 @ 1:12pm |
@mitch2 You may already know the answer to the question I am asking. Benjamin from Mojo Audio has said that his DAC's are great at time and timbre especially during dynamic changes from the use of chokes. I understand what he is saying but I have never heard his DAC's. Will you speak specifically of the MojoAudio DACs to the others and let us know if you notice a difference. Plenty of DACs use several transformers and lots of Capacitors but none have chokes. I am curious just how much this plays into the sound. |
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.
|
@mitch2 - Thanks for the thoughtful review. You’ve been doing an admirable job of communicating your impressions while maintaining a nuanced and objective perspective. I’m sitting here listening to my LTA Microzotl preamp. It’s a wonderful component. Just superb. Based on your description, I’m convinced I’d be happy with their DAC too. Looking forward to the rest of the reviews! |
Really appreciate all your time and effort here. Thank you @mitch2 |
@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. |
@mitch2 Thank you for the write up on the LTA Aero Dac. Very informative and well written. Out of curiosity, what tubes were in the dac? I ask because the sound from my LTA MicroZotl preamp varies greatly with different tubes. A kinda pricey set of Telefunken sounds the best. LTA didn't ship it with them, probably due to the cost. The tubes sent with it weren't all that great. |
Many thanks for your thorough and even handed approach. It’s exceedingly generous of you to expend such time and effort. Based upon your review, the Aero appears to be (for me) disappointingly consistent with what appears to be a major trend, currently-- audio gear that sacrifices upper bass/lower mids for the sake of an emphasis upon upper mids/highs. Unfortuately, not my cup of tea.
|
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. |
Thanks, Mitch -- I’ll look forward to reading the next installment, for sure. Interestingly enough, we sell both Merason and Bricasti at the shop where I work (Alma Music + Audio in Sterling, VA), and a colleague from another shop whose opinion I respect just recently suggested the LTA Aero as a potential giant killer. I’ve been considering a Bricasti M1 Series II, but this thread really has me approaching the process with a far more open mind. Unfortunately, the Aero lacks the AES input that I’d like to use from my [CEC TL5] transport to whatever DAC I end up with. I’ve got tubes covered with my Prima Luna Floyd Integrated (rolled with 60s [signal] & 70s RCAs), so my desire is to find something that will complement the existing configuration. Making things (far) more interesting, I recently picked up a pair of YG Carmel 3s, which are musical & revealing as all get out; particularly paired with my trusty ’ol REL S/812. I will say that I really like the sound of the Bricasti, but we’ve got ’em paired with various darTZeel bits, so the influence of the far more high-end components (compared to what I’ve got at home) is undeniable. |
@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. |
I'd just like to say that this is brilliant, and greatly appreciated... particularly from the perspective of someone who's in the midst of searching for an extremely high quality DAC that won't break the bank. Products in the Mojo Audio line-up hadn't been in the running before, but they certainly are now. |
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. |
@mitch2 I don't think you have to worry about people thinking you are biased. You have been very transparent about your comparison. I am interested because I have an smc amp and may get a preamp from smc so our systems might be very similar. Have you ever thought about swapping the chips in your DACs and putting the z-chips in the new X SE NCZ? |
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:
|
@ brbrock Yes. I'm working on a Mystique Z that will be built around the PCM58 DAC chip and will have an external power supply. The power supply upgrades will be plug-and-play so customers won't have to send their DAC in to us for upgrades. The entry-level power supply will have Hammond chokes (like our Mystique v3) and the top-of-the-line power supply will be dual-mono with LCLC dual stage nano crystal core chokes and will have no electrolytic capacitors. We're hoping we can sell the entry-level model for as low as $7,500 and we're expecting the top-of-the-line model will have to sell for over $15,000. But don't expect to see anything sooner than the end of 2025. We just purchased some new software and testing equipment that will be used in the R&D which I would expect to be a rather lengthy process. |
@fuzzbutt17 Benjamin can you tell us if you have anything in the works for upcoming models? |
Benjamin from Mojo Audio again. I very much appreciate Mitch as a customer as well as Mitch's efforts in this incredibly detailed review. That being said, I wanted to offer a bit different perspective. When our Mystique X just was originally released we sent them out to dozens of our customers who owned Mystique EVO B4Bs and EVO Pros. After comparing the two DACs side-by-side in their own systems all but one of those people preferred the sound of our new Mystique X and paid thousands of dollars to upgrade their EVOs to our new X. And a few of those people were professional reviewers who owned our EVO Pro. You may want to check out the many raving reviews and awards our Mystique X received on our website. Everyone hears things a bit differently and every system has a bit different synergy with certain components. But I think it should be taken into account that Mitch is one of only two of our customers out of the several dozen who compared our Mystique EVO and our Mystique X side-by-side in their own systems who preferred the sound of our EVO. As for my personal opinion... We get a few Mystique EVOs sent in each year for upgrades and I get a chance to hear them on our test bench. To my ear they sound a bit slower, softer, and a bit vague when compared to our Mystique X. A large part of this has to do with our Mystique X having a notably lower noise floor than our EVO. Technically speaking the reason for this is that our Mystique EVO has a series of power and signal cables that run beneath the digital and analog circuit boards as well as wires between the circuit boards and the connectors on the rear panel. In addition, we upgraded a few parts in the power supplies, such as going from the fast recovery diodes used in our Mystique v3 and EVO to zero-recovery ultra-fast SiC Silcon Carbide Schottky diodes used in our newer X and Y series. We also went from using three off-the-shelf unshielded PCB mounted power transformers that were used in our Mystique v3 and EVO to a 100% custom multi-voltage fully shielded Toroidal power transformer mounted on a Sorbothane pad that is both electrically and mechanically isolated from all circuit boards in our newer Mystique X and Y DACs. And unlike our Mystique v3 and EVO DACs all of the input and output connectors in our newer X and Y series mount directly to the circuit boards without any wires. The result is a notably lower noise floor which translates to more transparency between notes, a more open soundstage, a darker background, more micro-details, and more micro-dynamics. Which explains why literally dozens of our customers upgraded their Mystique EVO to our newer Mystique X. Of course being the designer, I am obviously prejudice :^P |
@mitch2 - Great review, Mitch. I’m very intrigued by the Mojo Audio line of DACs now. It sounds they simply bring joy to the experience of listening to music. In my book, that’s mission number one. Will be curious to hear your thoughts on the LTA DAC next. Lots of people seem pretty excited by it, so will look forward to hearing what you think its strengths are. |
@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. |
@mitch2 Thank you for the reveiw. I'm in the market for a DAC and I am very interested in the Mojo DAC's. Benjamin at Mojo talks about his DACs being different because of the chokes. Does any of the other DAC;s have chokes? I don't think I have ever seen or heard of another SS DAC with chokes. |
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. |
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. |
@mitch2 - Thanks for allowing us to enjoy your evaluations and comparisons vicariously. It's a great opportunity to learn about these other products I've not yet had the opportunity to hear and experience. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on these different products. While I'm absolutely happy with my Merason DAC1 MKii, I'm curious about the sonic strengths of these other DACS. |
@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! |
All of that said, there is no substitution for your ears. In almost all of my tests with different gear (many DACs, DDCs, CD transports, and streamers), I have preferred the I2S connection almost every time (if the units have that I2S connection). On units that did not have I2S, I mostly preferred the AES/EBU connection.....that's my ears in my system, or in systems I know well. One more point that should be noted, is that AES/EBU are digital cables (XLR connector type) that are 110 ohm cables, and NOT the standard 75 ohm cables like XLR analog interconnects |
@vthokie83 Thank you for helping me understand. I've been a vinyl guy for 50 years and am just now trying to add a nice digital source to my system. Best wishes, Don |
no_regrets Using the Jay's Audio CD transport as the example, here is the preferred order of connections (IMO). In each case the clock from the Jay's will be used, it's just how the clock is received (separate or imbedded, see my previous post): (1) I2S if your DAC has that connection (2) AES/EBU if your DAC has that connection (3) SPDIF (either RCA, coax, or optical....whichever your DAC has) The outlier is USB. Some streamers and or DACs (usually higher end gear) are optimized for USB, over other connections. |
stuartk The Jay's CD transports do have an excellent OCXO clockl, their transports are excellent in my experience. The Jay's CD transports have 4 different connections: RCA unbalanced SPDIF, BNC unbalanced SPDIF, AES/EBU balanced connections, and of course I2S. In all of those connections, the digital data and the clock are sent by the transport; and the DAC will use the transport's clock data. Using the unbalanced RCA/BNC SPDIF connections, the Jay's will transmit the digital data and the clock packed together, in an unbalanced format, and the DAC will then unpack the data and clock, convert back to I2S, and then perform the digital to analog conversion. Some higher end DACs may have the ability to regenerate the clock signal. The AES/EBU connection will transport the data and clock together, in a balanced format (balanced will do a better job of ensuring the data arrives correctly). That said, the DAC will still unpack the data and clock, convert to I2S, and then convert the digital data to analog. The I2S connection will transport the data and clock separately, so no need for the DAC to unpack it from the data, and no need to convert to I2S for the DAC, and then the DAC will convert the digital data to analog. In my opinion (and through some experience), I would use the I2S connection if possible, the AES/EBU if I2S is not available, and the SDIF connections as a last option. |
@ brbrock Sorry it took me so long to respond...I don't go on forums every day. LC = choke + capacitor CLC = capacitor + choke + capacitor In a CLC they use smaller chokes than in an LC power supply. Most power supplies in audio gear are just C (only capacitors) and have no chokes at all. LC is better than CLC and CLC is better than just C power supplies. As for tube DACs... Let me start by saying that the DACs I designed up until 2013 were all tube DACs. I found that tube stages are inherently noisy (usually <95dB SNR) and putting a tube stage inside of a DAC chassis tends to lower the performance. Keep in mind that DAC chips all contain solid-state op amps inside of them making DACs inherently a solid-state component. If you were to reproduce a DAC chip with 100% tubes the DAC would likely be the size of a microwave oven and would have to cost several times as much. Don't get me wrong: I love tubes. Tubes add what I like to call "attractive distortion." I just prefer to add a little "attractive distortion" to my system with a tube preamp and/or amplifier because I can always upgrade my preamp or amp as opposed to the often less than optimal noisy colored tube stage built into most DACs. Why am I saying that tube stages inherently have coloration and distortion? Aside from the individual sonic characteristics of each specific brand and type of tube, all tube stages require an output transformer or capacitor between the tube and the output. Yes, even the so-called LTA Aero with their "ZOTL" output stage has circuitry between the tube and the output jack...it is in no way "direct-coupled." OK...yes...there are actual OTL tube stages (such as Atma Sphere Audio) but they require BANKS of tubes. Transformers, capacitors, and exotic output stages all add a character and color to the music as well as degrade the purity of the music. Less is more. That's why the DACs I've designed since 2013 are direct-coupled with nothing but a single Vishay "Nude" resistor between the amplification stage and the output. On the positive side, a significant percentage of the better tube DACs do have LC or CLC power supplies which is likely why people find they have better timing and timbre than solid-state DACs most of which don't have chokes in their power supplies. |
@zlone I actually agree with you as most people probably do not have a DDC so a native comparison without a DDC would make a little more sense from that perspective, but it’s up to the OP although the comparison with a DDC is still really useful/interesting IMO. I’m the very happy owner of an Iris DDC and was only pointing out that galvanic isolation is another benefit that wasn’t initially mentioned in addition to all the others that @vthokie83 nicely laid out. I actually think almost everyone with a DAC should have a DDC because its benefits are that important and impactful, but that’s a story for another day. And then there’s adding a better external clock — it never ends… |
