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
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 

@lordmelton 

You are clearly entitled to express your impressions and opinions just the same as everyone else posting on this open forum. What makes these open audio forums stimulating and often informative is the wide spectrum of different experiences express by members. Tube versus the transistor is about as common a topic as any you’ll find in audio discussions. 

You have contributed numerous interesting viewpoints and perspectives which I suspect many appreciate. You do seem to become rather thin skinned and defensive (My perception anyway) with those who have opposing comments. High End audio is about as subjective as an endeavor could possibly be.

You have owned valves/tubes but find that your preference is solid state, that’s good for you. I’ve owned solid state components yet I find tubes the superior choice for me. Tubes have coloration and distortion to varying degrees. Most certainly the same can be said about transistor sound. We all at some point decide which one we find least compromising for our own needs. 

I am familiar with Spectral products and my listening impressions are different than yours. No big deal. You probably find solid state more “accurate “ than tubes, that’s your call. I find tubes more “natural “ and realistic “.  What is so ultimately satisfying is that we both can get exactly what we want.

Charles 



 

 

cleeds
6,086 posts
 
charles1dad

Tubes have coloration and distortion to varying degrees. Most certainly the same can be said about transistor sound ...  I find tubes more “natural “ and realistic “

Same here. The best of today's vacuum tube gear is very neutral - it's not at all like the lush, warm, "tubey" sound of days gone by. For example, compare a modern ARC Ref 5 or Ref 6 to an ARC SP-3 or SP-6.

I wish that were not the case, because tubes are an inherent maintenance item. But I haven't found anything to equal ARC gear in my system.

boxer12
8,656 posts
 

@lordmelton asked:

"Maybe it’s too early to compare but how does the AR stack up against the Furutech?"

 

I have to put more time on the Acoustic Revive RAS-14 Triple-C to answer the question. They both however make a positive difference & they are both good. IMO Furutech’s approach was to clean up the ground where AR’s isn’t. The reason I say that is when running the Furutech into the power amp I couldn’t use my ground filter with it without dulling the SQ a bit. That is not at all the case with the AR. In fact it sounds best in combination with my ground filter. That is "first impressions" however & I'll report back after getting more time with it. 

melm OP
1,085 posts
 

I have wound up with a tube system, but for the Musetec,  Although with its twin JFET analog circuit it probably sounds as much like tubes as a transistor circuit can. 

Just by chance, rather than by theory, I have found value in the tube components I have.  I came to tubes rather slowly.  I do think though that it's good to have tubes somewhere in a system and the preamplifier is perfectly positioned to be the place.  Moreover preamps use small tubes which are inherently more stable than power tubes.  That makes owning a tube preamplifier not much of a burden.

Post removed 
More to discover