Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

The Amanero board within the Musetec does the conversion from USB to I2S just like the external boards. It does that with an excellent power supply using super-capacitors, and clocks...

Yes, all USB boards, Amanero or XMOS or JLSounds does this as this is the only way to talk to the ESS. In other words, its a small DDC inside. What matters is the clocks, power supply feeding it and isolation. With an external DDC, you bypass the additional processing inside and go almost directly to ESS. The theory is this additional processing can put strain and induce noise/jitter on the chip. Even MSB has an external ProISL interface which converts USB to Optical. I strongly believe that DAC manufacturers should take all these into account when designing a DAC of great quality. Though USB was not meant for Audio interface, there is nothing wrong when designed right.

@debjit_g 

What matters is the clocks, power supply feeding it and isolation. With an external DDC, you bypass the additional processing inside and go almost directly to ESS. The theory is this additional processing can put strain and induce noise/jitter on the chip.

In the Musetec, the ESS chips, together with its regulating clock, are on the analog board  That board is powered by an elaborate LPS headed by the silver plated O-Ring transformer.  That LPS powers nothing else in the DAC.  The Amanero Board, together with its own 3 clocks are on a separate board.  That board is powered by an entirely independent power supply at the head of which is a second transformer, a toroidal, feeding into a bank of super capacitors that act as batteries.  That PS powers nothing on the analog board.  This goes about as far to insulate the ESSs and their own clock from any strain, noise or jitter from the USB input circuit as I can imagine.

Nevertheless, anything is possible in audio and there are rarely any hard and fast rules. So people are feeling the desire to experiment and we'll all be the better for their findings.

@melm yes, I completely understand. I read through their website about it but honestly this type of architecture is nothing new - many many have implemented separating out the digital and analog completely over the years. Playback Design MPD8 has, if I am not mistaken, 6 independent psu powering different sections of the DAC. Designers have gone crazy.

I find 005’s implementation, whatever that is, very thorough with excellent and careful choice of parts (which can only be done by listening) without going overboard and for a second I don’t feel that I need to use other interface (like I2S) to make it sound better which for other DACs I felt it needed. The more I hear the 005, the more I am impressed. Its pretty clear that this DAC is tuned by ear (and I can now see why ASR’s measurements turned out to be horrible, needless to say it being misleading).

interim report on my experience with the 005 - i am not done with the overall dac comparisons but think i have a reasonable fix on the 005’s sound, strengths and weaknesses, and have one comparison completed

i have spent the last week comparing it to a bricasti m1se (w mdx upgrade and lan input card) which i also bought to try, they arrived the same week ... took me a while to sort through which filter i like on the m1 (min phase 0) and then i started comparing to the 005

005 strengths (quite manifold) - detailed, transparent yet full sound, excellent rhythm n pace, jet black background, very nice tone/timbre, quite refined with no detectable grain in the treble or midrange, outstanding sibilance control, solid bass foundation and a dose of midrange/midbass ’fattening’ which i think is quite desirable

005 weaknesses (few and relatively minor) - a) onboard volume attenuation does degrade the sound noticeably (say to -20 db or more, small decrements are quite ok i think), so it is best used at full output, b) the unit, while having nice treble energy and resolution, sounds a little closed in on top (lacks a sense of ’air’ or openess), which affects the quality of its imaging, particularly perceived soundstage depth

compared to the bricasti:

1) 005 full output volume is slightly higher than the m1 despite identical stated nominal voltage ratings, so i reduced 005 output -1 db to equilibrate - listened to both rca and xlr outs, sonic impressions are consistent - ran 005 using usb in, vs m1 via lan in (which is supposed to be its best input), then used usb in on m1 also, sonic impressions unchanged

2) two main areas where i preferred the bricasti - these are subtle but obvious and reproduceable on my system on different days so i trust them as solid findings

-- the 005 presents the music more upfront, with a wide but not deep soundstage... voices/lead instruments are at the speaker plane or slightly forward, and there is a more closed in, closer-in quality to the sound, whereas the m1 portrays more at the speaker plane or slightly behind, but the soundstage extends significantly behind from there, significantly greater depth of stage with specific instruments and voices more layered longitudinally

-- while tonally not different (comparable treble/mids/bass proportionality) the m1se has a greater sense of ease and fluidity and flow whereas the 005 has a slightly (emphasize slightly) more ’uptight’, robotic/digital nature vs the m1se having more of an ’analog’ or organic feel for the lack of an even better term, decay of notes and ’atmospherics’ are better on the m1 - i can only speculate why this is... perhaps because the bricasti does onboard upsampling like the chord stack and the 005 doesn’t into its ess converters... i dunno

-- these two points are noticeable in direct comparison -- but listened to on its own, i would not say that the 005 seems closed in or robotic in the least... such is the benefit (or curse) of hearing a better piece of equipment in direct comparison on an otherwise quite resolving rig

you can check out my system... i used the maggie 3.7i’s w fuse bypass and magna risers, driven by pass int150, also tried a well modded musical fidelity a308, then an oldie carver lightstar direct ref passive xlr linestage into a smc modded mccormack dna125 power amp - digital front end is roon run on an elberoth i7 core machine, uptone etherregen and aqvox switch, feeding sonore optical rendus as roon endpoints with usb out

in summary (for now) i would say that the 005 is a really excellent dac, in the $2500-3000 price tier really really good, (i did not have the dena venus in tow anymore, but by memory i feel the 005 is more refined more organic, the venus was brighter iirc) -- the 005 comes within a sniff of stuff that is much much more expensive - the sound is superb: warm, full bodied yet nicely detailed, great speed and slam, built like a tank, and outperformed by the high dollar stuff in quite slight and subtle ways - as mentioned earlier it is best used in fixed output mode, with slow filter - it sounded more organic to me than the fast one

Well the Bricasti is $10K, 11K with network card vs $3K for the 005. The Bricasti also has a built in preamp, how was that issue handled during the test? I don't believe it's possible to bypass the preamp or feed the 005 into the Bricasti preamp?

I guess the main strength of the Bricasti is that it's dual mono but bear in mind it would be very interesting to run two 005s in dual mono for $6K. I will try this with my dealer's unit.