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.
Thank you for posting links of your system! Your system sounds pretty musical and clean. With W60 speakers, I hear only slight veil which is very good. Your system has no irritating sound and that helps me to listen your system for longer time.
I like W60 speakers’ sound better. I guess I am used to smaller speakers. Your system is a good sound system. And I bet it sounds lot better in real life and especially at night.
I wish your system sounds bit more focused. A good vibration control device under the transport will clean up veils further and organize soundstage. Below is more focused sounding my tube amp system. Alex/Wavetouch audio
And finally some Liszt piano music playing through my Mojo Audio Mystique X-24AM dac.
I hope that these samplings will be a little bit helpful to you.
I almost hesitate to share these videos, because although they may give you a little taste, they don't sound nearly as dynamic and full as when listening in my music room.
I’ve been enjoying my Mojo Mystique X-24AM for several months now. I think it does an incredible job and am very pleased with it’s musical performance.
I will be the first to admit that I am very technically challenged, but I will try and post a few samples of the dac playing in one of my audio systems to try and give you a little flavor of what it might sound like.
Please keep in mind... these are just amatuer recordings, using my iPhone with no external mic’s, simply handheld.
Listening through a decent set of headphones will likely be more enjoyable than thru cellphone/laptop speakers.
The Mystique Z is a single chassis DAC built in the same chassis as our Mystique Y.
What that graphic is showing is that the Mystique Z chassis is 1" lower than the Mystique X chassis allowing the distances in both the signal and power paths to be notably shorter.
For example, the I2S wires between the digital input board and the analog output board have been shortened from 3.75" in the X to only 1.75" in the Z.
No small difference.
You're not the first person to ask this question.
I'll add some text to the graphic to explain things better.
@fuzzbutt17Is 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...
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?
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.
Allow me to correct my mistake, Weiss's top end products do not have I2S, however the Antipodes streamers do offer the I2S output.
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
@fuzzbutt17I 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?
"Although you said that the Helene is better can you tell me if the Mystique X SE sounds similar?"
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.
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?
@fuzzbutt17excellent 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.
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.
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.
Cost is a consideration. Is buying a DAC better than what my system is capable of producing counter productive?
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.
Buy the best you can afford.
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).
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?
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 @snsalso 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.
@fuzzbutt17I'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.
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).
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?
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 :-)
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?
These are wise words anyone can and should respect. If more folks took a page from your book, there would be a lot less ado about nothing on this forum.
I2S also superior with Laiv Harmony. This anecdotal evidence based on my individual and unique streaming setup. I continue to not make any universal claims beyond the possible benefit of not having to detour around the other interfaces.
@snsyou 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.
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 Esoteric and they will tell you that their external clock can take their DAC to a different level and this is true - I have heard the stark differences running the external clock with 1M cable.
Talk to PS Audio, and they think their I2S interface sounds better and their are huge number of folks who uses I2S with their DAC simply because it does sound better and I used to own their DAC.
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 @fuzzbutt17for 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 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:
"The only difference from MkII to MkIII was changing the DAC board to accomodate the BB PCM-1704 24-bit chipset instead of the PCM-63 20-bit chipset. I have been told by two people who should have pretty good ears that they believe the MkII sounds better than the MkIII. I have been told by more people that the MkIII sounds better. HP from TAS implied the MkIII sounded better to him. My ears tell me they both sound great, and not so different from each other. The MkII projects a "creamier" slightly richer, fuller sound. The MkIII has better resolution and also falls on the rich, full side of the sonic scale compared to many others, but slightly less so compared to the MkII. I believe the bass is tighter with the MkIII, and also just as deep and powerful."
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.
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
)