@fuzzbutt17 Is that a 2 chassis system. I got your e-mail and went and checked it out on your site. I seen a picture with two different sized chassis. Also you may want to put a picture of the power supply on the webesite. Its impressive to see all the transformers and chokes etc...
Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
432 responses Add your response
We're starting to take orders for the first production run. We're offering a $1,000 discount on our new top-of-the-line Mystique Z NC. Estimated ship date is late September or early October. We're currently in the process of assembling, tuning, testing, and burning in the circuit boards - all we're waiting on is the chassis. |
Yes, every Mystique DAC since our Mystique v1 had a similar MSB zero-crossing trim adjustment. The single MSB adjustment on the AD1865 and AD1862 DAC chips we've been using did not require as sophisticated equipment to adjust them as the 4-bit adjustments on the PCM58 chips we'll be using in our new Mystique Z. When we get DACs in for repair or traded in we always check the adjustments for MSB zero-crossing of the DAC chips and DC offset of the op amps. Generally speaking we've seen no drift on the adjustments on the DAC chips and very minor drift on the adjustments on the op amps. So we would not recommend customers sending in their DACs to have us fine tune the trim pots. The only times we've found that it has been required to readjust the trim pots in our DACs has been when the DAC chips or op amp modules have been replaced. We're just about to order the circuit boards for our new Mystique Z. About a week after we test the circuit boards we'll be ordering the chassis. Sad to say that historically it can take anywhere from 4-12 weeks to get chassis. That being said, we're hoping to have the first production run of our Mystique Z DACs ready to ship by the end of August. As for price, we're hoping to have an entry-level version that will start at around $5K or $7K with normal resistors, less exotic capacitors, and Lundahl ferrous core chokes. Since historically we don't sell many of our entry-level DACs they will be special order only. The bang-for-the-buck version will have all the best component parts as our Mystique X SE and will come standard with Lundahl amorphous core chokes. We're expecting to sell them for $9K-$11K and we will inventory this version. The top-of-the-line version will come standard with Lundahl nano crystal core chokes and ISO Acoustics footers. We're expecting to sell those for $11K-$13K and we will inventory this version as well. I realize that the estimated pricing has a $2K range. Prices have gone up on all of our parts as well as the aluminum for our chassis. Not to mention any potential import duties. Until we confirm all of the component part prices in August we won't be able to provide a firm price. I hope you can understand. Our first production run will be reserved for existing customers who want to trade in their current DAC. We'll probably start accepting pre-production orders the end of July or beginning of August. Depending on the popularity of our Mystique Z we may not have DACs available for new customers until our second production run. Historically speaking our first production runs usually sell out to existing customers before the production run is even finished. |
@brbrock - It is my understanding that Mojo Audio does indeed make the one MSB fine-tune adjustment on the AD1862/65 chips they use, but needed the more sophisticated equipment to make the four MSB adjustments on BB PCM58 and PCM63 chips. |
@fuzzbutt17 So have you been trimming or adjusting the Mystique X series DAC's? When reading your post you mentioned that you just purchased the correct equipment to do that, So do the people with a current DAC send them in to get them adjusted? Do you have an ETA on the new Z DAC and an idea of the starting price point? |
Allow me to correct my mistake, Weiss's top end products do not have I2S, however the Antipodes streamers do offer the I2S output. |
To answer some of your questions... Our new Mystique Z will have three inputs: USB, coaxial AES/SPDIF, and TOSLINK. Aside from the upgraded DAC chips and upgraded power supplies, we are makings quite a few upgrades to our AES/SPDIF and TOSLINK inputs. The AES/SPDIF and TOSLINK inputs on the Mystique Z will still use a 100% external clocking source, but we’re adding an active buffering input stage, more advanced hybrid star/plane grounding, and some more advanced filtering stages, to better clean up the digital signal. As for multiple DAC chips and "daisy chaining" DAC chips that is a good question. One of the big reasons for using multiple DAC chips has always been that it averages any inconsistencies in the individual DAC chips yielding a more linear digital-to-analog conversion. That is why it was very common with lower cost lower performance R-2R DAC chips such as the TDA1543 and the AD1865. Other reasons for using multiple DAC chips have to do with output voltage and output impedance, which tends to be more important with tube than with solid-state DACs. By paralleling DAC chips, designers can often eliminate the need for an additional tube stage and often reduce noise and harmonic distortion. At Mojo Audio we take a different approach: rather than using multiple DAC chips we optimize the linearity of the DAC chips we are using. On the R-2R DAC chips we’ve used by Analog Devices and Burr-Brown they have the option of adding a fine-tune adjustment circuit. Considering it requires a trained technician to adjust these circuits using sophisticated test equipment you can understand why most companies decided to put multiple DAC chips in their DACs to improve performance rather than requiring every DAC they manufactured be burned in and fine-tuned by a technician. Now for the really cool news... The AD1865 and AD1862 DAC chips Mojo Audio has been using have provision for one fine-tune linearity adjustment circuit for the MSB. The PCM58 DAC chips we’ll be using in our new Mystique Z has FOUR independent fine-tune adjustments for the MSB, 2nd bit, 3rd bit, and 4th bit. No small difference. We actually had to invest in an extremely accurate distortion analyzer just to be able to make all of those fine tune adjustments. Of course we could have taken the easy way out and saved quite a bit of time and $$$ by using multiple DAC chips "daisy chained" in parallel. |
@mitch2 Thanks for the response on the Helene. I am in Oklahoma and if you bike you don't have much of a window. As we get into the summer the temperatures gets up past 100 degrees and in the fall and winter it is very windy so you got to get it in while you can. There must be a correlation between biking and audio because I have cone across several bikers online. I was looking at the internals of the Helene and it is very impressive. I have seen several companies daisy chain the DAC chips now. I know Benjamin at Mojo Audio is moving on to a different DAC chip but I would like to know the benefits of daisy chaining and why he hasn't done that.vv |
@fuzzbutt17 I have seen several DAC's now daisy chain DAC chips and seen the Aries-Cerat daisy chain several of the same DAC chips that is in the Mystique DAC's. Have you thought about doing it in your models. Is there a pro/con to doing this? |
@brbrock – over on the “What does your DAC sound like” thread, you asked:
Sorry for the late response, but it has been a busy time for me between trying to put some miles on my bicycle while also dealing with a new (to us) one year-old husky-shepherd puppy. We have owned 6 huskies over the years, so this is not our first rodeo, but she is a rescue dog and has incredible energy while also requiring a lot of time for acclimation and discipline. I haven’t posted too much about the Helene yet because I want to be as accurate as possible, and particularly when making any comparisons between it and the Mystique X SE NCZ, which I still own. However, since you asked, I decided to post my answer here on this thread, where I will be posting further thoughts about the Helene when I am able. I was not thrilled to have tubes in my system again as I have enjoyed the simplicity of leaving my system powered up all the time, which best matches my sporadic listening schedule. It also seems that invariably, the best sounding tubes are expensive, hard-to-find, NOS types. I currently have three DACs connected through my Singxer SU6 DDC so I sometimes listen to one of the SS DACs when the Helene is still warming up, which doesn’t take too long. It took me a while to dial-in different aspects of the Helene, including supports/damping, the specific tubes (the Helene can use multiple tube types), and the tube bias which is user-adjustable and affects the sonic presentation. However, the efforts to get it sounding right are worth it. In addition to the issues related to having tubes in my system again, there are a couple of ergonomic things I don’t like about the Helene. The only power switch is located on the back of the DAC, which seems a bit dumb for a DAC that needs to be powered up and down every day. There is a convenient switch on the top front corner of the DAC that selects optional double reclocking of the digital S/PDIF and AES inputs using the internal Super Clocks of the converter, so it should have been easy to include a conveniently accessible power switch at the same location. The other thing I don’t understand is the need for the Helene to invert phase, which makes DAC comparisons more time-consuming since the speaker cables must be reversed at the amps when comparing the Helene with phase-correct DACs. In fairness, once a user settles in with the Helene as their sole DAC, the phase inversion will not be an issue. Finally, I was a bit side-tracked when I recently purchased Monarchy 22B DAC on a whim to use in my outdoor system. The Monarchy 22B is a true balanced ladder DAC using a pair of Burr Brown PCM63P-K grade DAC chips. In my main system, I was floored by how good it sounds, compared to DACs I have here at any price, even though I only paid a few hundred dollars for the Monarchy. The tone, macro-dynamics, and bass are so good, I am considering performing a major upgrade to hopefully close the gap on the higher level of refinement I hear from both the Mystique X SE and the Helene. I have enjoyed having it in my main system so much that it may not ever see the outdoor system. As a brief insight into what I am hearing from the dialed-in Helene, IMO, it just sounds like beautiful music in pretty much every way we want our systems to sound, tone, dynamics, sound staging, clarity, bass impact, texture, and more. In my system, it does this on all types of music from hard rockers to softer instrumentals, and all types of vocals. I am not saying it is perfect, or that it would be an end-game DAC for everyone, or even for me, but, in my system it may very well reach a level of performance that begins to eclipse what my other components and room can keep pace with. I still like the sound provided by my Mystique X SE NCZ and, for those who don’t want tubes, that DAC remains a very nice SS option. I also very much look forward to hearing Benjamin’s Mystique Z, which he is designing around BB PCM58 DAC chips. I will post more about the Helene and my comparative thoughts after I can spend more quality time with it. |
| Post removed |
@fuzzbutt17 Will the new Mystique Z have a TOSLINK input? |
@fuzzbutt17 excellent points. From someone who uses an Antipodes K50 into a Weiss 501 via AES, which sounds better than its USB output, it makes me wonder why a high-end DAC manufacturer doesn’t provide a converter option which simply forgoes an internal clock altogether at a cost savings to the consumer. Thankfully, like you, neither manufacturer is considering adding the I2S connection and raising the cost of the end products. It is worth mentioning that it was only last year Antipodes developed a USB output they considered worthy of using and sonically comparable to the AES input. Thanks for your logical insights and input in this thread, It only increases awareness and success of your products IMO. |
An update on our new Mystique Z... Prototyping is going quite well. The PCM58 DAC chips we're using are the best sounding vintage R-2R DAC chips we've ever heard. Notably better than the AD1862N-Z chips (aka "Z chips") we offered as an upgrade to our Mystique X SE. We were hoping to start shipping the new Mystique Z this summer, but it's looking more like fall. Part of the delay is the usual delay from the machine shop that does our chassis. But to be honest, with all this import duty stuff still up on the air, we would prefer to not release a new product until we're certain what the parts are going to cost us. Even though our DACs are 100% designed and manufactured in the US we use quite a few parts from Europe and Asia. The difference in import duties could be the difference between an MSRP of $9K-$12K and an MSRP of $12K-$15K. No small difference. Mitch will be getting a pre-production prototype to review. When you see Mitch reviewing the prototype we'll be accepting orders for our first production run. Pre-production orders will have about a two-month lead time prior to shipping. |
I'm looking forward to reading about your experiences with the Helene vs your Mojo Mystique. I just got back from spending 4 days at the AXPONA Show near Chicago. I heard a lot of systems over the few days that I was there. There were systems that were moderately priced to the insanely exhorborantly priced of well over 2 million dollars! It was a great reminder to me that we need to check our preconceived notions at the door. Take the price of the component/system out of the equation and just simply listen with our ears, not our brain. Does the system connect with your emotions? Does it touch your soul? Don't let the cost of the component/s or the number of boxes, etc cloud your perceptions of what it may or may not sound like. I heard the multibox MSB, DCS, WADAX, etc and also Benjamin's Mojo Mystique.and I have to say that I am very impressed with the quality of sound that the Mojo puts out in such a small and unassuming box and for just a small fraction of the price of the aforementioned digital behemoths. It made me very happy that I had recently purchased a new Mystique X-24AM from Benjamin just a few months ago. I don't feel that I am missing anything sound wise, nor do I have to contend with multiple huge boxes, extra expensive cables, worrying about the space they would take up or if my equipment stands would handle their excessive weight, etc. Sadly, Aeries Cerat was not at the show, so I didn't have the opportunity to hear the Helene. I've read many positives things about the AC dac, so I'm very interested in your thoughts after comparing the two dacs. You always do a fantastic job with your descriptions.... you're very articulate and a gifted writer and I trust that you will be a strait shooter as you have been throughout this very informative, multi-page thread. Best wishes. Don |
Before ever encountering this thread I decided to bring in a Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC for the offered 15 day trial. Right now, after three days of extensive listening sessions, trying different connects and cables. (XLR vs RCA) comparing my current DAC to the LTA… Was planning to roll in 6S7N Rays Ultimate tubes but the box they came in remains unopened. Already had a matched pair of Tung-Sol 6S7GTP tubes and they went in the place the stock Westinghouse 12SN7 and happy with what I am hearing. The bass is more refined, the mids more articulate. Overall pleasing which I believe is a baseline in this world. I think DAC’s might be like trying to pick out the best television in Best Buy. You can go in and stare at them, read reviews, bla bla bla, Regardless of which television is brought home we come to accept it and think all is good.
|
I also look forward to your comments. I think you will end up finding it is the best dac for you thus far in your quest! Let us know if it just transports you more into the music with realism. I mean that flesh and blood kind of organic sound that just arrests your senses and captures your entire listening space! |
Have another comparison currently in process with an Aries Cerat Helene DAC. Must say, this one requires consideration during set-up and I doubt I am done yet. Not the least of the considerations are the size and weight - the thing weighs 88 pounds! It has three tubes and a user adjustable bias that does indeed change the presentation. Cables matter too since it is really a single-ended unit and is said to sound best with single-ended output cables. All I can say for now is that IMO this is a real contender in my system. I am not surprised that it doesn't totally change the sound of my system compared to other DACs I have had here, but it does do some things very nicely. Here are a couple of links to additional information (link 1) and some great pictures (link 2). |
It tells you nothing. The pro audio world also use cheap (compared to audiophile level) well measured and flat response studio monitors, how many audiophiles use those kind of monitors ? They also use Belden xlr interconnect - what percentage of audiophile use Belden in their setup ? They also sit in front of their mixing table with their ears and head in a vice, 4 ft away from the monitors - how many audiophiles do that ? And their are many more....does it matter what the pro audio world uses ? Their environment, purpose, use case are completely different than audiophiles. They do not listen to the music as we do - our purpose is to enjoy the music and to transport ourselves in that venue, their purpose to create that venue. In seems like you keep bringing the pro audio just to justify the lack of i2s in your dac. As @sns also alluded, I have not seen any manufacturer claim one input is better than others. You have your design, other manufacturers have theirs - what sounds best is finally determined by the consumer in their listening chair. @sns +1 |
@fuzzbutt17 I'm using the same usb chain with both I2S and usb, so usb>dac vs usb>Denafrips Gaia DDC.I2S>dac.
Neither my Musetec or Laiv dacs promote I2S as superior, Musetec specifically promotes their custom build usb board, again, this one of the best I've seen. This build based on what they had learned via Amamero usb board used in prior model dac.
What pro's use not necessarily always superior. I'd not want a pro system for my home system. And based on mediocre and worse sound quality on so many recordings pro's not generally my reference for best sound quality.
Finally, I'm not stating I2S is universally superior to usb, it is superior in my setup, many other report the same. |
@ SNS Your DAC can have a very advanced USB input. But if the output from your digital source and your digital cables are not equal then you cannot make a fair comparison between USB and I2S. All the inputs and outputs on any component are not equal. Companies who are promoting I2S are making sure that their I2S inputs and outputs sound better than the other inputs or outputs. USB may not have been created for music but it was created for component-to-component data transfer. I2S was not created for component-to-component data transfer. Can anyone name a pro audio component that is used in professional recording studios that uses an I2S input? On the other hand, USB is used in professional recording studios. What does that tell you? |
@ Soix Clocking is just one of the many factors. Re-clocking doesn’t fix corrupted data. And as I stated, it is not the accuracy of the clock that matters, but rather how little clocking noise it produces that pollutes sensitive analog components in the audible spectrum. So you can have the ultimate low-noise clocking in any number of components in your digital signal chain and then have your digital data corrupted or your analog signal polluted because of the clocking inside of your DAC. Every link in the chain matters. Think of the analogy of taking a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. How much of a difference would it make if you used all high res scanners and printers in the chain but one was low res? All you would end up with is a very accurate reproduction of the worst scanner and printer in the chain. Or what would happen if you had all high res scanners and printers in your chain but then your last scanner and printer was low res? |
Usb wasn't developed as an interface between streamers and dacs, this interface has no inherent advantage over I2S. I2S interface not universally used due to the fact I2S clock best placed closest to data lines. So, we can then all agree I2S clock in an external device not ideal. Now not being ideal doesn't necessarily mean it can't or won't be superior to usb or some other interface for any specific dac. My Musetec dac has a highly developed custom build usb board, far superior to what I see in vast majority of dacs, Laiv has far more pedestrian implementation, this approximates what I see in most. My specific streaming setup and implementation of both I2S AND USB interfaces provides me with superior results via I2S. I posit quality of any input interface INTO DDC is critical, output is only part of the equation. In direct comparisons of my optimized usb vs optimized I2S, I2S wins out. And I will continue to state YMMV, this just as others should admit. |
@fuzzbutt17 Thanks again for all the good info, and it makes sense. Could you clear up if using a DDC and SPDIF, AES, or i2S connection to a DAC if both the clocks in the DDC and DAC are in play? The clock in my DDC is better than the one in my DAC, and my hope was the clock in the DDC by sending a better signal to the DAC it would have less “work” to do and help it sound better. Am I off base in that reasoning and are both clocks in play? The sound is notably better with the DDC BTW. Thank you for any thoughts. |
I do not think anyone claims I2S is the be all, above all interface for audio, in fact, USB wasn’t to be either. It just so happens that in some DACs they simply sounds better for whatever reasons. Most off-the shelf DAC chips will have an I2S interface to talk to and hence some manufacturers thought it would be wise to make it available externally, even though I2S is only meant for short connection, typically few centimeters. Now we see more and more DACs coming up with this interface - maybe they just want to have it for convenience and be competitive or maybe the designer have really put some effort to do it correctly (and there are good examples of it).
I have not seen any manufacturer claim or promote their I2S input sounds better. All I can tell is I had two DACs with I2S input and in both DACs, there was no compromise on the USB implementation from the manufacturer side and I do not typically use AES/SPDIF as my DIY server doesn’t have it. To have I2S or not is a choice for the designer/manufacturer and the market they want to serve. I still believe a well implemented USB both in the DAC and Transport (along with an optimized s/w) would be sufficient in most cases, however we cannot really generalize it and at the same time nobody is bashing Mojo DACs for not having I2S either :-) |
@ debjit_g You are 100% correct, which is my point: You have to look at ALL the factors in order to evaluate what is potentially better. But there are some hard and fast facts... One of these facts is that the problem or advantage with this or that clock has to do with the noise they generate that can be heard in the audible spectrum. No one can hear the accuracy difference between a .005% and .000005% clock. There are many approaches to resolving this noise issue: One is using the lowest noise clock like an OCXO. Another is using an external master clock. Another is using well isolated power supplies and shielding to prevent the noise from the clock from effecting the sensitive analog circuitry. Some companies use all of the above. Something to note that most companies don't have equal sound quality on all of their inputs. Some DACs sound better with USB...some sound better with AES balanced/coaxial...some sound better with Ethernet...some sound better with I2S. Those are not criticisms of the specific input formats but rather a specific company's implementation. Another thing that is a FACT is that I2S is not approved by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) as an external data transfer protocol. That alone should make any rational person question what these companies are doing and why they are doing it. Have you considered that those companies who are promoting I2S are putting less $$$ into their other inputs so that their I2S input sounds relatively better? As with most companies, Mojo Audio is attempting to build a high-performance product to meet a price point. As with most companies, in doing so we have to make certain compromises. Of course if you looked at the cost of parts inside of all of the other DACs you named and compared their DACs with our DACs that sell for around the same price point you would find that we spend SEVERAL TIMES the amount on the parts that go into our chassis when compared to those other companies. And that's not to mention the cost of the chassis or packaging. Mostly what we compromise on at Mojo Audio is how fancy looking our chassis and packaging are. We also compromise on the number of inputs we have since each of our inputs is engineered to potentially have the highest level of performance. Did I mention that we also compromise on advertising? Don't think that you're not paying for those fancy ads in audio magazines! Going back to compromising on our chassis... That's not to say we skimp at all on our chassis: every piece of hardware we use is non-magnetic stainless steel, we use laser etching vs screen printing for the lettering on our chassis, we use an EMI shielding Alodine primer, we use extensive anti-resonance treatments, and we use an extremely durable polymerized finish. All things that add to durability and performance as opposed to aesthetics. As for internal vs external + internal clocking... If your internal clock is of a lower performance than your external clock it will degrade performance. Plus any internal clock will create noise that has to be dealt with. By having no internal clocking on AES balanced and coaxial inputs Mojo Audio is eliminating any potential clocking noise inside of our DACs as well as allowing the best-of-the-best of external clocks to meet their full potential. And yes, it is a compromise to save manufacturing cost and allow us to sell our DACs for under $10,000. We certainly could add $1,000 to our MSRP and create an internal clock that will rival (I said "rival" not "beat") the ones in a Jay's CDT-3 MkIII or the dCS network bridge...but why would we do that when those products already have exceptional clocks inside of them which in effect act like a master clock with our DACs? And we could add $1,000 to our MSRP to include an I2S input that would perform as close as possible to our existing inputs. But since over 80% of the streamers and servers on the market exclusively use USB or consider USB to be equal to or better than their other outputs. And since 100% of the CD transports and many servers and streamers have an AES approved balanced and/or coaxial output. Why would we want to raise the price of our products so that we could interface with some fringe technology like I2S that less than 10% of our customers are actually using? |
@sns you have already experienced the I2S input in your Musetec and how much better it can sound compared to other inputs, given a good source. Its all about the design choices and how much care you take to implement it - some DACs have the common inputs just for the sake of having it to be competitive in the market, some DAC designer simply goes beyond with the implementation. |
@debjit_g +1 Exactly! Is there an objective best with streaming components and chains, streaming is the wild west these days, so many devices and ways to implement these devices. Only with direct comparisons within one's own system could we begin to develop a hierarchy for so many designs, implementation of those designs. And still, that hierarchy may only hold for that individual. I've read plenty of white papers over at Audiophilestyle forum, the rationale and logic makes sense, does it result in higher sound quality? Sometimes yes and sometimes no, and this based on anecdotal evidence from any number of users. And then we make our choices, add our voices, and so it goes. |
Posts like @fuzzbutt17 's latest add a lot of value to this forum imo. Thank you for taking the time. Agreed! +++ |
Posts like @fuzzbutt17 's latest add a lot of value to this forum imo. Thank you for taking the time. |
Every DAC manufacturers claims their implementation is the best and sounds the best. What’s new here ? Whatever Mojo Audio has stated in that post is right and wrong at the same time. Many folks already know those facts but they are all theory, however in practice they don’t really agree irrespective of what a manufacturer claims.
Talk to Taiko Audio and they will tell you their proprietary ultra high speed XDMI interface is the best for Audio with ultra low latency. Talk to MSB and they will tell you their ProISL is the best since it can completely isolate noise from the source. I have heard many DAC whose AES sounds mediocre at best. Then how come it’s the best interface for audio ? How come USB, which wasn’t even design for audio sounds the best with many DACs ? and so on…
so, who is right ? Does anybody (especially the consumers) think there is a winner ? I doubt…. |
It’s threads like this that have continually educated me about my hobby and my system. It’s beneficial when manufacturers and dealers contribute to our forum. I now understand why my Concert Fidelity 040BD DAC doesn’t have a clock - and has only one input - S/PDIF. It sure sounds good to me. Thank you @fuzzbutt17 for joining the discussion. |
@fuzzbutt17 That’s interesting stuff and thanks for sharing. Very surprised you don’t use a clock for SPDIF and AES. Is there no benefit to putting a high quality clock in your DAC for those connections? My impression was that with SPDIF, AES, and i2S that both clocks in the transport/streamer and DAC could potentially work together depending on the design for potential added benefit. Honestly I’ve been pretty fuzzy on how both clocks work when those connections are used so would be very interested in your thoughts on this and relatedly why you don’t use a clock in your DACs for those connections. |
I certainly would not want to offend anyone with my comments. But I'm reading a lot of opinions about I2S, OCXO clocking, and master clocks. I have no doubt that those of you who have heard this or that component with OCXO clocking or I2S inputs or master clocks and preferred the way they sounded are 100% correct. But that doesn't mean that all components with those inputs, outputs, or clocking sound better. There are too many other factors. I2S was never intended for component-to-component data transfer. If you don't believe me, why don't you look up the Audio Engineering Society's specification on I2S which clearly states that it should not be used for distances over 4" and that it is only intended for inside of a DAC chassis. Personally I would trust the Audio Engineering Society over any audiophile fad. Show me any equipment used in recording studios that uses I2S between components: last I checked it doesn't exist. The preferred data transfer between components in recording studios is still balanced AES. Consider what I2S actually is doing and decide for yourself if it is even logical. The proponents of I2S claim that clocking which is embedded into the data stream can become corrupted during data transfer. So how would it make sense that by having data embedded with clocking along with a bit clock and a word clock could synchronize better?!?!?!? If the clocking embedded in the data gets corrupted, then the data would be corrupted, and the data could not synchronize with the other two I2S clocks. Think about it. Not to mention the fact that all Audio Engineering Society standard digital music transfer protocols have the clocking embedded into the data stream. Yes, USB, S/PDIF, AES, Ethernet, etc., all have clocking embedded into the data stream. That would mean that the internet music streaming services that most people are using have clocking embedded into the data stream and the data stream is traveling cross-country. Do you really think that after the clocking embedded in the data stream has traveled for miles and miles and miles over the internet that isolating clocking for 1 meter by doing I2S from your streamer to your DAC is going to correct something? LOL! As for OCXO clocking or master clocks that's another common misconception. OCXO clocks were never originally engineered for high-end audio. They were engineered for electronics that are subject to extreme weather conditions such as those used in submarines, aircraft, missiles, rockets, and polar expedition vehicles. Some audio engineers discovered that OCXO clocks had lower hash noise in the audible spectrum and started to use them. But OCXO clocks are generally less accurate than femto and other clocks engineered for high-end audio. So using OCXO clocks is generally a tradeoff. Consider the problem with clocking noise is that it pollutes the other power supplies inside of the DAC. This is one of the main reasons why external master clocks are used: they completely isolate the clocks power supply from the power supplies inside of the DAC and other digital components. At Mojo Audio we take a different approach: the LC choke input power supplies we use in our analog power supplies are so much better isolated than those other companies use that clocking hash noise from our femto clocking can't corrupt it. This way we get the best of all worlds: the increased accuracy of femto clocking, less clocking noise in our analog power supplies, and less clocking corruption than happens with external master clocks connected by long cables. Also note that our AES and coaxial inputs have no internal clocking or reclocking. That way you can hear the full benefit of whatever the clocking is in your CD transport or streamer. That's why customers and reviewers who have used our DACs with uber CD transports like the Jay's CDT-3 MkIII tell us the sound rivals or beats their vinyl rig. We even have a unique USB lift switch that eliminates 100% of the clocking inside of our DAC chassis when using the AES or coaxial inputs. Bottom line: I recommend that you trust your ears. Customer after customer and reviewer after reviewer have compared the sound of Mojo Audio DACs using our USB, AES, or coaxial inputs to most of the popular DACs who use I2S or Ethernet inputs or OCXO or master clocks and they have consistently preferred the sound of our DACs. I think that says it all. |
I look forward to hearing the Mystique Z with the PCM58 DAC chips based on my fond memories of the sound of a Lector CDP-7T/Mk II that I owned. The Mk II used BB PCM63 DAC chips while the CDP-7T/Mk III that I upgraded to used BB PCM1704 DAC chips. I posted this way back in 2008:
If you remember, many of us were chasing resolution back in those days, which is probably why I stupidly upgraded from the Mk II to the Mk III. I remember the guy who purchased my Mk II was an experienced audiophile and I believe an industry insider. He was thrilled to get the Mk II with its PCM 63 chips. I remember thinking that he may know something I didn't, and I was right! While I look forward to hearing the Mystique Z, the one I am most interested in hearing is the EVO DAC with the PCM63 DAC chips that Benjamin has proposed to release in 2027. I suspect that could be the one that will make me forget about my EVO Pro. |
We're never switching from R-2R to Delta Sigma. (I think I threw up a little in my mouth). The PCM58 is a 40-year-old Burr-Brown 18-bit R-2R DAC chip that was marketed as a direct competitor to the Analog Devices AD1865. It sounds and looks almost identical to the famous 20-bit PCM63. Both the PCM58 and PCM63 are about 4X the size of the AD1862 which I assume accounts for their higher level of performance. Not only are they significantly larger and sound slightly better than the Analog Devices DAC chips, the PCM58 potentially has 4X the number of linearity/distortion fine-tune adjustments. Where as the AD1862 and AD1865 each have one adjustment for the MSB (most significant bit) to optimize linearity and minimize distortion for each channel, the PCM58 has an adjustment for MSB, 2nd bit, 3rd bit, and 4th bit. No small difference. We've had quite a number of PCM58 and PCM63 DAC chips stashed away for over a decade. The reason we haven't designed a DAC with them is that in order to fine-tune linearity and minimize distortion you need to use a very sensitive and very expensive distortion analyzer which we didn't have at the time. We've even had our friend Brial Lowe, the genius behind Belleson regulators, design a custom low-noise amplifier and notch filter for us to assure that even the most subtle noise that could get through to the distortion analyzer from AC mains and RF would be eliminated allowing us to truly optimize these DAC chips to 20-bits of resolution. Here's the kicker.. Among other differences, the entry-level Mystique Z DAC will have only the fine-tune adjustment for the MSB, the middle-level Mystique Z will have the MSB and 2nd bit fine-tuned, and our top-of-the-line Mystique Z will have MSB, 2nd bit, 3rd bit, and 4th bit all fine-tuned. So rather than expecting that Mojo Audio is switching from R-2R to Delta-Sigma expect a level of R-2R performance from our Mystique Z unlike any company has ever offered. And expect a new version of our famous EVO DAC for around $17,000 to be released in 2027 built around Burr-Brown's famous PCM63 DAC chip. |
@brbrock Read this on line…“The PCM58 DAC chip is a true multi-bit R2R (Resistor Ladder) DAC and not a Delta-Sigma DAC” |
@fuzzbutt17 Are you stepping away from the R2R DAC's with the PCM58 DAC chip. This is a Delta Sigma chip correct? How many PCM58 DAC chips are you going to use in the new Z DAC? I am excited to see what you have. |
One more thing... Single-ended vs balanced outputs is quite system dependent. Our balanced output is an additional stage following the single-ended output, so all things being equal, the single-ended output should sound better. But when are all things ever equal?!?!?!? As it states in our user manual, we suggest that you try both outputs in your system and decide for yourself. Generally speaking, our single-ended output will sound sweeter, will have better musical flow, better harmonic coherency, and have more emotional content. Generally speaking, our balanced output will have more intensity, dynamics, and gestalt. But as I mentioned, that is VERY system dependent. We have quite a few customers with fully balanced amplification who prefer our single-ended output and others who tell us our single-ended output sounds too soft and vague. In my personal experience some balanced amps don't do single-ended as well as balanced. |
WOW! That's quite a review :^P To put my 2 cents in... I've had both our X and Y DACs in a variety of systems playing a variety of music. Depending on the specific system and the specific recording would depend on which one I prefer. And given the same chokes (ferrous, amorphous, or nano crystal core), depending on what cables you use, you could make each sound quite similar to the other. That only makes sense considering they are almost identical in circuit, power supplies, and parts quality, aside from the DAC chips. For those of you who are interested, we hope to release our new Mystique Z DAC sometime this summer. It will use the same 3" high chassis as our Mystique Y and will have 3 inputs (USB, coaxial, and optical). The Z will be built around the famous PCM58 DAC chip. Aside from the DAC chips, nearly all of the parts in our new Z will be identical to our X and Y DACs. But since we've made quite a few upgrades to all of the power supplies, expect an even lower noise floor, even darker background, even more transparency, and even more micro-details and micro-dynamics. Prices will range from $7,000-$11,000 depending on what options you get. Because we've had so many requests for pre-orders, we've decided to offer the first production run exclusively to existing Mojo customers who are trading in and upgrading their current DACs. If you're considering upgrading before the fall let us know ASAP so we can put you on the waiting list. Tim is going to get one of the first Mystique Z DACs to review...around the same time Tim gets a Z DAC to review we'll be shipping our first back orders. With our current number of back orders new customers may want to get on a waiting list if they are hoping to have delivery in early fall. |
Mojo Audio Mystique Y AM DAC (warning – long) Perspective: Just about everything in this audio hobby, like most things in life, is related to perspective, developed through one’s experiences and other factors. Since none of us are starting from exactly the same place with respect to our individual perspective, what we hear from a component or system, and how that makes us feel, cannot be universally described or consistently interpreted. Thus lies the problem with reliably conveying and understanding the intent of an equipment review. When listening to a Mojo Audio digital audio converter (DAC), first-time listeners may focus on the organically natural sound and rich tonal qualities that transcend what they have previously heard from digital equipment. Several first-time reviewers of Mojo Audio DACs have expressed these impressions in their written reviews. Those of us who have owned Mojo Audio DACs and heard various models, may be more aware of the differences as the line has moved forward. My first listen to the Mojo Audio Mystique v3 created a more life-like musical experience in my home than I had previously experienced through other converters. As the basic design progressed through the Mystique EVO Pro, each step improved on the very successful combination of rich tonality, sweet treble, dimensionality, and full powerful bass. The EVO Pro may have sounded a bit rounded and colored (in a good way), and the bass a bit full-sounding vs. defined, but the overall result was very analog-like and certainly pleasing to hear, at least to me. The X SE continued the evolution of the brand down a path toward higher resolution, and the implementation of the special Z-version of the AD 1862 chips, as well as nano-crystalline (NC) core chokes, further refined the sound in the X SE NCZ model I currently own. Trade-offs: Another audiophile conundrum is the desire, yet inability, to “have it all.” As it is, most of our audio gear balances resolution vs. warmth, leading edge incisiveness vs. melodic harmonics, full-bodied vs. tightly damped bass, a tonally bright and airy vs. warm and dense sound signature, a dynamic vs. relaxed presentation, and the list goes on. No one audio component is going to float everyone’s boat equally. Therefore, I find it more helpful to look for audio gear that provides a sound I enjoy with the music I listen to, rather than search for perfect sounding gear. In other words, I don’t need the exact truth if I can have a version that sounds good to me. Seasonings: Of course, any individual piece of kit must be inserted into a system, where it plays with all the other pieces in a specific room, as part of a whole. The peripherals involved in an individual system, including tweaks, room treatments, supports, cables, and more, all make a difference in how things sound, to varying degrees. While these “seasonings” may not fundamentally change the sound of a component, speakers, or an entire system, they may indeed affect the overall satisfaction one has with what they hear their system. Most of us have our systems set up for the gear that we own, meaning the tweaks, the cables, and other factors are already optimized to provide the sound we want from the gear we have. Therefore, replacing a single existing component can be an uphill battle for the new component, sort of like being the new kid at school and having to prove yourself without having the home field advantage. I am fortunate to have on-hand a variety of cables and cable choices, like a cupboard of seasonings, each offering a unique perspective, or shading, on how things sound. My system also allows the use of fully single-ended (RCA) cabling, fully balanced (XLR) cabling, and any combination between. During the process of listening to the Mystique Y AM, I took the opportunity to try a variety of types and makes of cables. Introduction: I have spent about a month with Benjamin Zwickel’s Mojo Audio Mystique Y DAC with amorphous core chokes (Y AM). You can research the specific technical and physical aspects of the Mystique Y DAC on the Mojo Audio website, and by reading Ken Redmond’s review of the Mystique Y NC in Tracking Angle, or Howard Milstein’s review of the Mystique Y (both NC and FE versions) in The Sound Advocate. Both Redmond and Milstein have also reviewed versions of Mojo Audio’s Mystique X DAC. Having heard both, as I have, provides them an enhanced perspective on the comparisons between the Mystique Y and the more expensive Mystique X. My experience with Mojo Audio has been that Benjamin continually pushes his personal envelope to create better performing, better sounding, and correspondingly higher priced DACs. The X DAC was sort of a sideways step from the EVO Pro, as the X was originally created to solve a supply chain problem by replacing the large, harder to get, coated/damped aluminum chassis used with the EVO Pro for a more available and economical extruded (X) aluminum chassis that is used with all the Mystique X and Y DAC versions. However, that seemingly sideways step actually ended up moving the ball forward based on the lower noise floor and other sonic improvements resulting from shorter signal paths, better anti-resonance topologies, improved parts, and other factors. You can read earlier in this thread about my comparisons between the Mystique X SE NCZ DAC that I currently own and the (full-size chassis) EVO PRO that I previously owned (that also used Analog Devices AD1862-Z chips). I ultimately kept the X SE NCZ and sold the EVO PRO, although sometimes I wish I still had both. The Mystique Y is the newest DAC in the Mojo Audio stable and is unique from a few perspectives. First, the Mystique Y DAC is sort of a step backwards in that it is less expensive (by about half) compared to the current line-up of Mojo Audio DACs. The second unique aspect of the Mystique Y is that it has only one (USB) input. As a result, according to Benjamin, Mojo Audio was “able to greatly simplify the digital circuitry because there was no need for an input selector, demultiplexer, or S/PDIF receiver. The AD1865 R-2R DAC chip is directly fed by the USB input module." Third, the Mystique Y uses a different digital to analog processing chip. Beginning with the Mystique v3, the Mojo Audio DACs have used the Analog Devices AD1862 DAC chip. The Mystique Y breaks rank and uses an AD1865 chip, as discussed in a post by Benjamin earlier in this thread and in more depth on the Mojo Audio website. Other than the type of Analog Devices DAC chip and the single vs. multiple inputs, the Y and X DACs are reportedly quite close in both their circuit designs and component parts. You can read Benjamin’s post in this thread from Feb 16, that explains the Mystique Y is priced at three levels, starting at $3999 for the entry model with ferrous core chokes (Y FE), moving to $5,499 for the model I have been listening to here that has amorphous core chokes (Y AM), and topping out at $6,999 for the (Y NC) model using the same nano crystal core chokes that are in my Mystique X SE NCZ, which retailed for $12,499. DAC Chips: The Mystique Y uses an Analog Devices AD1865 DAC chip while the Mystique X uses two AD1862 DAC chips. While there are many factors affecting the sound of a DAC, because the Y and X DACs are quite similar other than the DAC chip used, I suspect the different chips used in these DACs are a significant factor influencing the sonic differences I hear between them. SoundBsessive have posted a DAC Chips List with comments on many of the commonly used NOS chips. In their opinion, the 20-bit AD1862 chips used in the Mystique X are “one of the world’s best audio” while the 18-bit AD1865 chip used in the Mystique Y is a “very good multibitnik, 2 DACs in one case (stereo)”. They seem to hold the AD1862 in higher esteem than the AD1865 but rank them both highly. The reason for two AD1862 chips in the Mystique X is because the AD1862 is not a stereo chip like the AD1865, of which only one is needed in the Mystique Y. Examples of other manufacturers using the AD1865 chip in their current DAC offerings include, Aries Cerat at one end of the price spectrum, that uses two independent banks of eight R2R matrixes (16 total) Analog Devices AD1865N-K chips in current mode in their $19,000 Helene DAC, and Linear Tube Audio at the other end, where their $3,950 LTA Aero DAC uses a single AD1865 chip, like the Mystique Y. Ken Redmond described his perception of the sonic differences between the two Analog Devices chips in his Tracking Angle review of the Mystique Y NC where he said, “The sonic differences between the two chips are subtle but noticeable. The 18-bit [AD1865] chip [in the Mystique Y] sounds energetic and exciting, while the 20-bit [AD1862] chip [x2 in the Mystique X] sounds more harmonically dense and liquid. Both units [the Mystique Y and X] have excellent flow and timing that sets them apart from many other DACs. A choice between the two may come down to the important consideration of system synergy.” I would add that the type of music you enjoy may also play a part in which of these DACs you will appreciate more. In his The Sound Advocate review of the Mystique Y, Howard Milstein also discussed the differences he heard between the two chips by saying, “Because of the AD1865 DAC chip in the Mystique Y, it can sound a “tad” livelier, and a tiny bit more transparent, with a touch more dynamism in its overall character. On the other hand, because of the AD1862 DAC chip in the Mystique X, the X has slightly more liquidity, texture, and harmonic content. This can be summarized as a sound that is a bit denser, and slightly more texture-filled with playback content that exhibits a bit more concert hall realism.” Milstein’s description borrows from Benjamin Zwickel’s own opinion of the sound on hand from the two chips, as stated on the Mojo Audio website and summarized as; lively, dynamic, and transparent (AD1865) vs. liquid, textured, and harmonic (AD1862). Listening: I have added some tunes by Susan Tedeschi to my test playlist that I used to compare the DACs previously discussed in this thread. Her inaugural “Just Won’t Burn”, follow-up “Wait for Me” and “Live from Austin, TX” albums all display her emotion-packed vocals ranging from sweet and pure, to hard and gravelly, depending on the tune, as well as great sounding guitar playing, percussion, piano, Hammond B3 organ, and the occasional harmonica. Her music serves as a good source for comparing components in my system because of the variety of tempo, tone, and drive, and because I enjoy listening to it. The Mystique Y AM consistently shone a light on slower smoother songs like “Blues on a Holiday,” where the Y DAC highlighted the smoothness and rich tonal qualities of Tedeschi’s voice. The organ, piano, and guitar on the live version of “Wait for Me” were rich and vibrant, and the piano solo left me wanting to hear more. I noticed no compromises when the pace and volume picked up. Back to my traditional test tracks, the lead-in bass on “Birds” by Dominique Fils-Aime’ displayed the level of impact I hear from most of the more expensive DACs I have had through here, and her breathy voice sounded great, as did the back-up singers. From Astrud’s wonderful voice on “The Girl from Ipanema,” to the signature beat on Steely Dan’s “Babylon Sisters”, the ruggedly pure early James Taylor vocals, and horn section, on “Steamroller Blues”, and Sara Bareilles’ silky smooth, emotionally charged, vocals as they climbed to her crescendo on “Gravity”, all of those selections were enjoyable to listen to through the Mystique Y AM in my system. To close out my listening, I rocked out for a while to Soundgarden, Neil Young/Crazy Horse, Chili Peppers, Audioslave, and Nirvana. IMO, the Mystique Y handled the harder rock music just fine. I heard no congestion, straining, or thinning out under the load of the hard-hitting rock tunes and especially engaging was hearing and feeling the beat underpinned with solid Mojo Audio bass. I would not hesitate to recommend the Mystique Y AM as a good choice for those who listen primarily to rock. Clearly, the Mystique Y AM was an enjoyable visitor in my system. Was it the perfect guest, I would say pretty close in that the timbre, tone, dynamics, and solid bass drive that make listening to music fun were all there on the variety of music I threw at it. These are the signature attributes of all the Mojo Audio Mystique DACs I have heard, starting with the Mystique v3. The solid bass provides a platform for the richly textured midrange and smooth treble. The Mystique Y wears the same team colors. During its stay, the Mystique Y AM basically did nothing wrong, no discernable sibilance, excess noise, tinny, muffled, or boomy sound, so, basically no party fouls. Pretty much all good stuff from the Mystique Y AM, especially at the price point. So, is the Mystique Y AM the perfect DAC for my system and tastes? Certainly a top contender at the price point. However, I didn’t hear quite the depth of soundstage or tonal saturation that I hear from my Mystique X SE NCZ, and that I have heard from a couple of the other more expensive DACs that have been through here. Those improved qualities related to soundstage depth and tone I hear when listening to the Mystique X SE NCZ, increase the sense of musical realism and result in an even greater level of listening enjoyment, beyond what I hear from the Y AM, and other DACs I have had here that were in the $4-7K price range. Comparison to the X SE NCZ: It seems a rather high bar for a company to encourage comparisons between their flagship component and the newcomer at around half the price. However, based on my listening, I agree with the two reviewers, and with Benjamin himself, that the sonic signature from the two DACs is mostly cut from the same cloth, and not all that far apart. Since both Ken Redmond and Howard Milstein reviewed various versions of both the Mystique X and the Mystique Y DACs, I suggest also going back and reading their described comparisons between the two. To my ears, the Mystique Y AM displays a dense, natural, organic flavor that is similar to the five other Mojo Audio DACs I have owned. The presentation supports the perception of how music sounds in real life, with vibrant tonal colors, engaging dynamics, and strong bass. The melodies are smooth, and the harmonics are balanced. The soundstage is not overblown or underdone, although it doesn’t show quite the depth that I hear from the X SE NCZ. The Mystique Y AM displays a sense of energy in the upper midrange and high frequencies that leads to a slightly sharper sound in comparison to my Mystique X SE NCZ, from which I perceive a rounder, more physical sound with more body and musical flow, sweeter but less incisive high frequencies, and maybe a bit more resolution. As much as I respect and enjoy what the Mystique Y brings to the table, and especially at its price, in my opinion, the Mystique X SE NCZ is the current Mojo Audio flagship for a reason. In addition to the sonic attributes described above, hearing music from the X SE NCZ gave me a superior perception of ambience, of where the music was created and what is going on around the musicians, and greater physical depth. The Mystique Y AM provides those positive attributes too, just not to the same extent as the X SE NCZ. This is not faint praise when you consider that I have preferred the sound of the X SE NCZ over some pretty good DACs like the Mola Mola Tambaqui, the Merason DAC1 MkII, and Mojo Audio’s own well-reviewed EVO PRO. How much are the differences I hear between the X SE and the Y related to the implementation of the different DAC chips used in the two converters? I can’t answer that – you need to ask Benjamin. However, other than the chips and inputs, the two DACs apparently share most of the same construction features and parts. Therefore, as I understand it, there is not much else to be different. As others have reported, the two chips do apparently each have their own unique sonic signature. Also, maybe having a separate AD1862 chip for each channel (in the Mystique X SE NCZ) is beneficial in some way over using a single AD1865 stereo chip (in the Mystique Y AM), but again, you need to ask Benjamin. I cannot answer why I hear differences between the two DACs, but I do know the (over twice as expensive) X SE NCZ provides more of the type of sound I enjoy in my system. The good news is that the two DACs clearly represent the Mojo Audio house sound. While I believe the differences between the Mystique Y AM and the X SE NCZ are perceptible in a resolving system, in many systems the differences I have described would likely be considered different shades of the same color. In those systems, listeners would likely need to have both DACs in their system at the same time to reliably distinguish how they are different. I suggest looking at it like this - If you want a natural sounding DAC that enjoyably brings your reproduced music to life, try a Mojo Audio DAC. If you want one of the most enjoyable NOS R2R DACs available, look at the Mystique X SE in whatever variant you can afford. If you don’t have quite that much to spend, consider a version of the Mystique Y and enjoy that you are getting more than a taste of Mojo Audio’s top DAC for a much lower price. Comparisons to Other Manufacturer’s DACs: I have a few comparative DACs here in the general price range, including my SMc Audio DAC2 GT-24 (around $6K), a Metrum Acoustics Jade (around $3K), and a Benchmark DAC3 HGC (around $2,400). Two I would have liked to directly compare are the Linear Tube Audio LTA Aero (around $4K) and the Merason DAC1 MkII ($8,500) but, unfortunately, those last two have been gone from my DAC garage for months now. The Jade is an R2R DAC while the Benchmark uses the delta-sigma conversion architecture so there are basic differences between those two similarly priced DACs. Both of them are clean and articulate sounding in my system. However, what I hear from the Mystique Y AM is a more natural, realistic type sound than what I hear from either the Jade or the Benchmark, based on the Mojo DAC’s greater tonal color and dynamics. In my opinion, the Jade is a bit more musical than the Benchmark, which can tend toward “clinical” sounding. Based on my sonic tastes, I would choose the Mystique Y AM over either the Jade or the Benchmark. I wish I still had the LTA Aero DAC here since buyers in the $4-$6K price range may be looking at both the overachieving Aero and the Mystique Y. Being biased toward the Mojo Audio house sound, and comparing what I hear from the Mystique Y AM with my recollection of how the LTA Aero sounded in my system, I suspect out of those two I would personally choose the Mystique Y. However, I can certainly understand some buyers choosing the LTA Aero, as I remember being impressed by the clarity and dynamics I heard from the Aero, as I reported in my write-up earlier in this thread where I said it provides a “vivid presence and a dynamic sense of realism.” I would strongly suggest buyers looking at the Aero also look at the Mystique Y, in whatever configuration they can afford since they are both strong choices. However, I suspect the sonic differences between the Aero and the Mystique Y will result in buyers having a clear preference for one over the other, rather than it being a tight choice between the two. While I would choose the Mystique Y, they both sounded good in my system and either choice would be a win. Also, remember that both manufacturers offer buyers liberal trial/return periods of 45-days for Mojo Audio and 30-days for Linear Tube Audio, so there is no reason not to have the DAC that sounds best in your system. I still own the SMc Audio DAC2 GT-24 with its CS4328 chip (“good odnobitnik” according to SoundBsessive). Since the DAC2 is a delta-sigma DAC, the comparison to the Mystique Y AM is sort of apples to oranges. The SMc DAC plays a bit smoother and a little more open sounding than the R2R DACs but slightly less organic, dense, and natural sounding, not unlike other delta-sigma DACs I have heard. It doesn’t quite display the smooth, refined, analog-like sound that the Merason DAC1 MkII did when it was here, but the SMc DAC2 is actually more engaging to me based on its good drive, body, and tonal color. A choice between the SMC DAC2 and the Y AM would be a close call for me and would require me to spend more time with each. Wrap: To close, the Mystique Y AM DAC is another winner for Benjamin, and for Mojo Audio. It is a naturally musical sounding DAC that compares well with other DACs in the $5-6K price range, and above. It displays the Mojo Audio house sound with hard-hitting bass, a rich midrange, smooth treble and big macro dynamics, all leading toward an organically dense, natural, and engaging sonic treat at the price point. In my opinion, the Mystique Y AM gives you about 85-90 percent of the sound of Mojo Audio’s current flagship, the Mystique X SE NCZ, that sits at a much higher price point. The NC version of the Mystique Y may be even closer, but I didn’t get to hear that version. Postscript Stuff: (If details and fine print aren’t your thing, here would be a good place to stop.) RCA/XLR Outputs and Cables: Benjamin has discussed that some of his customers believe the Mojo Audio DACs sound better from their single-ended (RCA) outputs. Fortunately, I was able to accommodate that configuration in my system by first trying the Mystique Y AM using single-ended cables extending all the way through my system, from the Y AM DAC output to the inputs of my SMc Audio monoblock amplifiers. I was not won over with the sound I heard through the single-ended connections. Later, I tried using single-ended cables only from the outputs of the Mystique Y AM DAC to the inputs of my volume control/preamp and then using balanced (XLR) cables for the remainder of the journey from the SMc preamp into the SMc monoblocks. What I heard, aligned with my previous experiences, and with the feedback I have received from SMc Audio, that the SMc Audio preamp to amplifier connection sounds best using balanced connections. My initial impression was that using the single-ended (RCA) outputs of the Y AM DAC may have sounded a bit smoother and more relaxed, but I eventually decided I was hearing a dulling down of the sound when using single-ended connections. In my system, and to my ears, using the RCA outputs resulted in the musical presentation having less tonal color and vibrancy. I was careful to level-match since using the single-ended outputs lowered the output voltage but, even then, reconnecting balanced cables to the outputs from the Y AM DAC restored a more vibrant and tonally rich sonic signature. I heard basically the same thing when trying my X SE NCZ DAC from its single-ended outputs. I suspect some of Benjamin’s customers do in fact hear good things from the RCA outputs of his DACs. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work that way in my system and this recent experience reconfirmed that my system simply sounds better when played through the balanced connections. What I hear is likely related to the design of my other components and shouldn’t be used as a benchmark to judge how the Mystique Y DAC will sound in every system. To be thorough, I tried several different XLR (and RCA) cables out of the Mystique Y AM DAC, which confirmed my preference for the balanced outputs. Of the cables I have on-hand, Cardas Golden Reference XLR cables ended up as my favorites to use with the Mystique Y AM. They seemed to display the best body and tone, as well as deep bass, and they rounded the sound just a little. Conversely, through the Mystique X SE NCZ, the Cardas interconnects resulted in a presentation that was a little too dull compared with other balanced interconnects I have here. When selecting connections, the design of the individual components will affect how things sound when they are connected together. Cable choices, and the balanced/single-ended issue I encountered is certainly not a one-size fits all proposition. Is One USB Input Enough: I have played with DAC inputs quite a bit over the past 6 months. As a baseline, my Sonore Signature Rendu SE Deluxe (optical) streamer only has one (USB) output. I worked around that by adding a Singxer SU-6 DDC that allowed me to input the USB from the Sonore streamer into the DDC and then use multiple output options including AES/EBU, RCA, Toslink, or I2S (although I didn’t use I2S since none of the DACs on-hand had I2S inputs). After comparing most of the DACs involved in the earlier part of this thread, and completing my write-ups on those DACs, I began solely using the USB output of my streamer into the X SE NCZ DAC and later into the Mystique Y AM after that DAC arrived. I then added a Singxer UIP-1 PRO USB Interface to isolate the USB signal. Amir Majidimehr at Audio Science Review (ASR) reviewed the UIP-1 and concluded that it actually improved measurements when connected to certain gear, had little to no effect on other gear and, for most components, it probably isn’t necessary (not unlike most USB “decrapifiers”). In my system, I don’t reliably hear any differences, so it probably isn’t necessary but since it doesn’t seem to do anything wrong, I keep it plugged in. In my system, I believe the USB input into my X SE NCZ sounds best. I use the Network Acoustics Muon USB cable. That the USB input sounds best is obviously convenient since I have a streamer with only one (USB) output. However, of all the DACs I have owned, the ones that had USB inputs seemed to sound best that way, or at least as good as they sounded through the other inputs, including I2S. Therefore, I would be fine if Benjamin could improve the sound, and reduce the cost, of his upcoming Z DAC by having only one (USB) input. Maybe offer other inputs by special order? My System: My reference system for purposes of listening to the Mystique Y AM DAC is as outlined below and as posted on my Audiogon virtual system page. Racks and supports are either by Sound Anchors or consist of heavily reinforced wood furniture. Support platforms consist of either hardwood, constrained layer materials (i.e., Zoethecus Z-slabs), a carbon fiber BDR Shelf (under the DAC), and Silent Running Audio Ohio-Class XL+ bases under the amplifiers. Footers mostly consist of platinum silicone hemispheres sized for the weight of the components or speakers being supported. Cables are a variety of what I have found to sound best, including Cardas Golden Cross speaker cables, and interconnects ranging from Cardas Golden Reference to Furutech PCOCC, to Belden or DIY tinned copper cables. Power cords are by Isoclean, Furutech, Neotech, and DIY using Western Electric wire. The components are as follows:
Disclaimer (the fine print): The purpose of this thread was to provide one person’s perspective when comparing a variety of DACs in a relatively stable system. These writings are nothing more than biased observations and opinions by a hobbyist, and certainly should not be taken as a prediction or guarantee of how something will sound to another listener in their unique system with their unique music and listening preferences. To readers who plan to use the information from this thread to influence buying decisions, I strongly encourage you to also read other reviews and forum posts regarding the components you are interested in. Consider how the reviewer’s systems and listening preferences are similar and/or different from your own. Before you purchase a component, contact the seller to discuss any questions related to the technical design and construction, physical condition, and quality/estimated longevity of the component being considered. Inquire about, and obtain, the permissions and stipulations for a listening trial, if possible. Returning a component that doesn’t suit you, or your system, even at a monetary loss of the cost of shipping and restocking, is better than feeling stuck with something you don’t want. Once you receive your new component, be sure to give it time to warm up properly, give yourself time to acclimate to the sound of the new component, and try a few different things (cables, power, tweaks, etc.) to make sure you are hearing the component at its best in your system. After a week or so, try putting your previous component back in your system before making any final decisions. |
In my view, it would be a mistake to base your decision on my experience. This is my entire point -- it’s not only subjective in terms of how you hear and what you like but room and system dependent. How can you possibly assume that we have any of the above in common? I suspect, judging from what I’ve read about the Mystique, that I’m likely an outlier. If you are seriously interested and want to save a bunch of money, I would check it out. If you have not done much research, then maybe not. Someone’s going to get a terrific deal.
|