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
toddk31
36 posts
 

No I get it. I have the lks 004 an preferred it over my holo spring kte dac. Amir favorably reviewed the spring. I was pretty sure since my previous experience with lks was and is positive I would very much enjoy the musetec. His results were very surprising an fairly different from stated specs. Will be curious to see if Jimbo responds to these measurements. I have been an audiogon member for over 20 years an have learned a lot from the community over the years. I also have learned a lot from ASR an respect a lot of the knowledge there. In my view there is room for the objective an the subjective viewpoint. This anti ASR thinking I find almost humorous. No one forces anyone to believe anything. We are all free to decide what we believe and I believe there is room for both camps.  I have reached out to Jason at Midwest audio to let him know about the asr review. Hopefully he will get jimbo to respond.  

lordmelton's avatar
lordmelton
877 posts
 

@toddk31 Yes I find it sad that people cannot trust their own ears. Your example in point. KTE measures well but you sell it, nobody would sell something if it sounded good.

Goldensound has a great video about measurements.

Honestly if you learned from ASR I feel sorry for you and even sorrier if you feel you need ASR’s blessing to buy something.

I’ve seen people get roasted on ASR for buying a $120 cable.

Anyway ASR is a sad place. Amir gets on here and raves occasionally because he can’t stop people blowing ten grand or more on cables.

 

melm OP
1,082 posts
 

I’m here to report that my Musetec 005 sounds as good today as it did yesterday. So eveyone can take a breath.

It is notable that there are several people here who purchased the Musetec and compared it directly to a DAC that they had before and that ranked very high on amirm’s list. They prefered the performance of the Musetec and were happy to replace their old DAC with the Musetec.

I’m confident that there will be follow-ups to what has been written. I would choose not to ridicule the amirm post and thereby emulate the know-nothings who are responding to the amirm post by ridiculing those who find the audio performance of the DAC to be exceptionally fine, and the DAC a very good value.

sirnui
82 posts
 

I never understood ASR's methodology for determining good or bad.  I think measurements with instruments can help our understanding of what we're hearing but the whole thing is too complex to boil it down to a few types of measurements.  It's human nature to simplify our understanding of complex topics but this creates a lot of room for error.  The biggest flaw in the ASR methodolgy is to not use their best measurent tool that they have which is their ear and their brain. No man made tool can ever match this.

dbb
196 posts
 

I posted this at ASR:

I’ll try to state my view as clearly as I can now to avoid endless repetitive back and forth. I am not looking to be a troll or be trolled. I have only occasionally read this forum, but the impression I’ve gotten on this Musetec “review” is that not one comment was from anyone who has listened to it. How much time did Amir spend listening to it? I have owned this dac for over a year and spent many hours listening to it and also comparing it to the Holo May.

My thesis then is the tail is wagging the dog here. Why do we even care about audio equipment if not to listen to music? Please read that sentence twice.

The interesting and important question is: why do measurements of audio equipment sometimes differ sharply from what is subjectively heard by the listener? Even John Atckinson the measurement guru of Stereophile magazine has commented on occasion that his listening impression differs from what he has heard.

So, since musical enjoyment is primary, the significant question to examine scientifically is: why do measurements of audio equipment sometimes differ sharply from what is subjectively heard by the listener?

This is a scientific question, though not one confined to physics and electronic date exclusively. As far as I know at this time we do not know the answer. It is not easy to explore, but it seems to me we should look to the fields of psychology and neuropsychology. For now, again, it seems we don’t know. Clearly enjoyment of music is a mental phenomenon.

To emphasis my point, when we go to a concert, do we bring a microphone, computer, and oscilloscope? No, of course we go to listen and enjoy the music. Again, the tail is wagging the dog in this forum.

What’s going on here appears to be neither science nor a review, but a measurement report. My conclusion is that this forum might best be called not Audio Science Review Forum, but Audio Equipment Measurement Report. The data measured is of interest but ultimately only a footnote since the most significant question is: how does it sound?

 

More to discover