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.
@audioman58 makes an excellent point. Lavorgna favors tube amplification, so it makes sense that he might also favor a more neutral sounding DAC. Thanks for the suggestions. FYI, I grew up in the lower Hudson valley but now reside in N. CA. |
@rfagon - I agree with your assessment of Michael Lavorgna’s reviews of those three highly regarded DACs. I was also interested in reading his perspectives as a single reviewer listening to all three DACs in a single system. His preferences lean towards the totaldac house sound, which he describes as musical, dimensional, natural, and “startlingly present,” instead of solely looking for the best measuring, highest resolution DAC. Lavorgna uses the word “’crystalline’…to describe the sound of the KTE May DAC” and discusses how it is best paired with amplifiers that present a “softer and more dimensional sound”, and not with highly revealing/resolving amplifiers. As with the May, he advises against pairing the Tambaqui with highly resolving amplifiers such as Ayre’s EX-8 saying, “the Ayre / Mola Mola combination offered a bit too much of a good thing in terms of resolution and clarity where music could adopt a hardness that I found distracting.” Livorgna says, “The Mola Mola Tambaqui and the Holo KTE May DAC are more closely related, nearly sounding like brothers.” In addition to being resolving and displaying crystalline clarity, the Tambaqui and Holo May brothers both exhibit excellent measurements, while the totaldac house sound that he likes so much comes from a DAC that apparently doesn’t measure well. The measurements of the totaldac d1-six reviewed by ASR were so bad that Amir Majidimehr said, “I don’t think we have ever seen anything as broken as this.” This seems to bring us full circle to the adage that what measures well doesn’t necessarily sound good to everyone, and the converse about what measures poorly. IOW, regardless of how something measures, you need to listen for yourself. The Tambaqui certainly has its fans but, in a direct comparison, I preferred the sound of my Mojo Audio DACs over the Tambaqui. I respect the accuracy, power, resolution, and musicality of the Tambaqui but, to me, the Mojo DACs sound richer and more natural, which are traits I appreciate and enjoy. However, like the totaldac, the Mystique X SE also doesn’t measure that well, at least according to John Atkinson at Stereophile. I have been enjoying the Merason DAC1 MkII here, which uses a hybrid chip, but I have no idea about how it measures since I haven’t seen a review of the Merason with measurements. However, as with Michael Lavorgna and his totaldacs, I keep coming back to the sound of my two Mojo Audio DACs as being more natural, even if they are perhaps not quite as refined sounding as the Merason or as well-measuring as the Tambaqui. Here is an interesting write-up about the different DAC levels in the Mojo Audio Mystique X line, as you progress from the Mystique X, to the X SE, and then to the X SE NCZ version that I currently have here. |
I am tempted to try out Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC in my system since I have more than 50 different kinds of 6sn7 and variants.
Also I got favorable impression of Linear Tube Audio Aero DAC during Pacific Audiiofest 2024.
My current Dac is Chord Dave and Mscaler modified with thrree Farad LPS.
But I expect to audition Wadax Studio later this month at home.
I would like to make sure I have enough money for the above whose retail price is 41k$.
Thomas |
Checked out the link you provided for comparative reviews of Mojo line and noticed the reviewer, like Lavorgna, utilizes tubes in his system. I'm unfamiliar with the gear in question so it's not clear to me whether this is a SS amp + tubed pre or what but, this brings up a question: do the Mojo DACs require tube amplification to sound "natural"?
|
Not in my system, which is posted here on Audiogon. SMc Audio solid state preamp and two SMc Audio solid state monoblocks. Another interesting article/post on that site is which provides one writer’s perspective on different categories of gear. If you look at the DAC list, you will find the Mystique EVO Pro 21 in the Holy Shit!! tier, but the X SE was apparently not listened to. It does provide a perspective on the Mojo Audio house sound, although IMO the X models move away from the "coloration" mentioned by the writer. However, OTOH, I believe what he calls "coloration" is a sonic attribute I find compelling on my EVO Pro Z, to the point where I seem to be unable to sell it an settle in with only the X SE NCZ. |
