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

So it seemed logical that each part was listened to before a commitment to its inclusion and cost. That was confirmed recently in correspondence with the designer as I wrote in an earlier post

Well, he has my full respect for doing so. I can just imagine the amount of time and patience it takes to place those parts in a component and painstakingly listen and evaluate each individually. He could have easily decided to insert parts with superb specifications and certainly less cost and let it go at that. Genuine props to this guy. He must really love and appreciate music.

Charles

The only thing that gave me pause was Musetec reaction to poor ASR measurements, recall them stating Amir's measuring equipment superior to what they used in designing 005.

 

While I'm on board with listening as being superior to limited measurements in voicing components, it would be nice to know Musetec had superior measurement equipment in their lab. The question is; could the 005 have been even better had better measuring equipment been available?

 

Realize playing devil's advocate here, 005 is wonderful, not sure I'd change a thing. 

 

It certainly would be nice to actually hear audio products as they go through voicing phase by manufacturers, This would give us much better idea of how measurements correlate with various sound qualities.

Hi @sns

I guess in this respect we see it a bit differently. Once you have taken the time to carefully listen and judge various parts, what is fussing over measurements going to yield post listening confirmation? The designer could have taken the popular/typical approach and just resorted to relying on Op-amps. He’d gotten pristine measurements.

I have no doubt that he uses measurements as an aid, some are fundamentally necessary and important, no doubt. But by a country mile I prefer his approach. Just sit there, use your ears and listen to what you hear.

I would not be at all surprised if during part comparisons during design development he had parts that measured better yet sound worse. I bet if he were asked, he would admit this to be true. That’s why presumably he puts such priority on listening. Bravo!!! If I misinterpreted  your point, my sincere apologies.

Charles

 

@charles1dad

I would not be at all surprised if during part comparisons during design development he had parts that measured better yet sound worse. I bet if he were asked, he would admit this to be true.

Well, no surprise. In my "summary" of the issue I wrote, "At various stages he says he made changes that could improve measurements but reversed them if the sound quality, as he heard it, was not as good."