2. digital
  3. 166933-4269

Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

Some history: I was the OP on a four year old thread about the Chinese LKS MH-DA004 DAC. It achieved an underground buzz. The open architecture of its predecessor MH-DA003 made it the object of a lot of user mods, usually to its analog section, rolling op amps or replacing with discrete. The MH-DA004 with its new ESS chips and JFET analog section was called better then the modified older units. It has two ES9038pro DAC chips deliberately run warm, massive power supply, powered Amanero USB board, JFET section, 3 Crystek femtosecond clocks, Mundorf caps, Cardas connectors, etc., for about $1500. For this vinyl guy any reservation about ESS chips was resolved by the LKS implimentaion, but their revelation of detail was preserved, something that a listener to classic music especially appreciated. I made a list of DACs (many far more expensive) it was compared favorably to in forums. Modifications continued, now to clocks and caps. Components built to a price can be improved by costlier parts and the modifiers wrote glowingly of the SQ they achieved.

Meanwhile, during the 4 years after release of the MH-DA004, LKS (now Musetec) worked on the new MH-DA005 design, also with a pair of ES9038pro chips. This time he used more of the best components available. One torroidal transformer has silver plated copper. Also banks of super capacitors that act like batteries, solid silver hookup wire, 4 femtoclocks each costing multiples of the Crysteks, a revised Amanero board, more of the best European caps and a new partitioned case. I can't say cost NO object, but costs well beyond. A higher price, of course. Details at http://www.mu-sound.com/DA005-detail.html

The question, surely, is: How does it sound? I'm only going to answer indirectly for the moment. I thought that the MH-DA004 was to be my last DAC, or at least for a very long time. I was persuaded to part with my $$ by research, and by satisfaction with the MH-DA004. Frankly, I have been overwhelmed by the improvement; just didn't think it was possible. Fluidity, clarity, bass extension. A post to another board summed it up better than I can after listening to piano trios: "I have probably attended hundreds of classical concerts (both orchestral and chamber) in my life. I know what live sounds like in a good and bad seat and in a good and mediocre hall. All I can say is HOLY CRAP, this sounds like the real thing from a good seat in a good hall. Not an approximation of reality, but reality."

melm
melm OP
1,057 posts
 


This is my follow-up to the publication of Jinbo Li’s short letter yesterday and his more extended communication this morning.  He is the designer/engineer and manufacturer of the Musetec DAC.  After a day of reflection I’m becoming more and more appreciative of the normally taciturn Jinbo who says, effectively:

Any old competent engineer can design a DAC that tests well.
I’m interested in music, so what I do is try hard to design a product to sound good. Period. Measurements notwithstanding. They just fall out, and are what they are.

For example, as one user has written elsewhere, "the majority of the distortions comes from the discrete I/U and output stage. The output amplifier and buffer has no feedback (I think). Without it the distortion values cannot compete against integrated op amps."

I would not have him change my own DAC to meet the need for a better specification.

I wonder what the audiophile public will make of a product that is designed only by listening without reference to tecnical specs, and that does not publish technical specifications. One thing it may do is to define better the term "audiophile."

I did advise him that when you publish technical specifications you invite tests that should confirm those specifications. So perhaps he should revise that part of his site.

@sns
I suppose we’ll have to wait and pose the question when he puts forward an option. My guess is that it will compromise sound. I’m not certain why he is proposing to go in that direction. I know he has always felt a great obligation to his customers.

fl_guy
33 posts
 

Likewise, I would prefer and choose better sound vs better spec.s if it does come down to that. I think that all of use who enjoy this DAC feel this way. Who knows, maybe his investigation just might lead to even more refinement, and further elevation of the sound quality/reproduction as @sns suggested might be possible?

Much respect is due to Jinbo imo for his continued pursuit of the best sound at reasonable price points over many generations of products. From what we’ve seen and heard of his products so far, I doubt that he would sacrifice sound quality for better measurements, but as let’s see what he finds and proposes. I look forward to his findings, and proposal if any.

ortodox
70 posts
 

Hello ,

i am writing from Europe  and I have been following this forum from the beginning. Thanks to sns, lordmelton, melm and everyone else for sharing the experience with 005. I decided to buy 005 because the best option is price / quality / I I2s. As far as ASR is concerned - measurements are not everything. Even the hi end DAC R2R Rockna  doesn't have perfect measurements, but it sounds very, very good. My current DAC Soncoz SGD 1 ($ 450) is identical to mola mola tambaqui ($ 10,000) by ASR measurements. Emotions cannot be measured =)) Eventually Jinbo Li can fix the ESS hump (as did the engineer of Soncoz SGD 1)

sns
3,003 posts
 

One option designers use to obtain better specs is applying more feedback to a circuit. Generally, this adds a sterility the 005 certainly doesn't need. Per @fl_guy not meeting Musetec published specs is problematic. This is how China manufacturers get themselves in trouble here, we expect honesty, you don't retain your position in marketplace with marketing deception.

 

Still, as has been mentioned previously, the dac will sound the same today as it did prior to ASR review. While I don't much agree with ASR  philosophy, I'd rather see equipment that both measures and sounds great vs only one of the two.

charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,236 posts
 

Any old competent engineer can design a DAC that tests well.
I’m interested in music, so what I do is try hard to design a product to sound good. Period. Measurements notwithstanding. They just fall out, and are what they are.

For example, as one user has written elsewhere, "the majority of the distortions comes from the discrete I/U and output stage. The output amplifier and buffer has no feedback (I think). Without it the distortion values cannot compete against integrated op amps."

Virtually all mass produced entry level DACs/CD players made by the mainstream brands follow the same recipe. Op-Amps (Inexpensive off the shelve varieties) utilized for I/V conversion and analog output stage duties.

They employ generous amounts of NFB (Negative feedback) and do one thing consistently well, they yield very good test measurements and specifications. How do they reproduce music and engage the listener? Seemingly that's besides the point. They will measure quite good, mission accomplished.

Certainly it is true to say, "to each their own". I'll chose the talented designer who makes decisions .based on extensive listening and reassessment. I do not find any particular comfort with good spec numbers on paper. It has to sound very good when listening to music.

Charles

More to discover