Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

I think it just comes down to preference instead of what is "better". At this stage in the game for me, I value smoothness/ listenability and staging. I listen to a lot of post punk, classic rock, shoe gaze, and dream pop, which we know is not all great recordings. I would probably prefer the May with those genres, but I didn’t want to spend that kind of money and got what I felt was the best DAC from there (005) and have tweaked the rest of my system to make my music sound good to me. You guys are so right about the break in period, it truly is a roller coaster. I played some Til Tuesday yesterday never heard them sound like they did, the extension, the spaciousness in the recording. The songs just made more sense on why and how they played it. This morning it sounded different, not as good.

@ja_kub_sz
In this crazy world of audio, preferences might very well not be transitive. So it is possible that a person might prefer the May over the Musetec, and the Tambaqui over the May, but yet the Musetec over the Tambaqui. The rules of logic just may not apply here and just have to be set aside.

I personally have long ago given up trying to optimize my system absolutely by buying and trading constantly. It is a process, I think, that costs too much in money and anxiety for a simple audiophile. Just content with very, very good and working around the edges to make it sound better. I love to experiment with cheap wires, for ex.

@kclone ​​@teknorob23
Preferences in DACs, or other audio components for that matter, can IMO be broken down into two categories, what I call the traditional preference vs. the modern preference. These are also reflected in tha manner that professional reviews used to read, and read today. The traditional preference is for accuracy to unamplified musical instruments. This is the "old" Absolute Sound (TAS) standard and can only be done referencing classical music as the standard as @dbb has done here and in his outstanding comparative review here.

In the "old" days reviewers were required to be regular concert goers. Generally, classical music is the only music regularly heard without the intersession of electronics and loudspeakers. As TAS’s editor HP wrote, if it is right for classical music, it will be right for all other music as well. That’s a view I adhere to.

The modern preference is simple. A component is preferred if it sounds good to the listener or reviewer. "Good" is absolutely subjective. So we have threads here that seek advice on obtaining a "warm" or "analog sounding" sounding DAC, for example. The traditional view is that "warm" (they called it yin) is a euphonic coloration to be avoided. As for me, I don’t want a DAC to sound warm. I want a piano to sound warm. I want a cello to sound warm. But I want my DAC to make a cello sound like a cello. Similarly for "analog sounding." That has come to mean, I think, a certain comfort sound, also a euphonic coloration. My reading here suggests it’s being asked for even by those unfamiliar with excellent analog systems. For I don’t even want my analog system to sound like what is here described as "analog" sound. In a thread about a DAC said to be analog sounding, there were expressions like "a relaxed presentation," "allows body relaxation," the sound was "further back in the hall," it "allows my body to relax" and even that it gives "the ability to go into a kind of meditative state." My own preference is very different. For me listening to audio is a substitute for going to a concert. When I do that, I expect my pulse to be greater at the end than when I walked in. Otherwise, what’s the point?

In any event, it’s the buyer’s money and their choices. Components will be made to fit every kind of preference, and that’s fine. But I hope this goes at least part of the way to explain differing preferences in DACs.

@melm  You stated differences in perspective perfectly.  Hearing live unamplified music these days is very infrequent for most. We are on the same page 100% in our sound preferences. I respect the idea that enjoying music has no single best method and is purely a matter of subjective preference. But, like you, I would never buy a ticket to hear the world's best record player if I could use the same money to attended a live concert. 

Well put @melm 

I'm still on the fence, but after this week should have a better idea of what I'm gonna do.

I really am enjoying my system and this is more an exercise of completing a second system for my office and another for my main entertainment space.

But I'll be honest I'm more interested in FPGA based DAC's then R2R DAC's. It's just my own personal interest. I just need to think less and listen more 😉

The language of audiophiles and/or terms and words we use to describe sound is an attempt to objectify an inherently subjective experience. Melm's one example of descriptions of 'analog like'  goes to show how it can have different meanings to different people. I presume most audiophiles know what intent of that descriptor means, yet it may not be entirely accurate in an objective sense. We can't know for a fact the person claiming to hear this characteristic in their system really knows what analog sounds like, or conforms to our definition or understanding of same.

I suppose I was lucky in a way in that my beginnings in audio were prior to information technology explosion. I had virtually no communication or access to information in regard to the sound of audio equipment. I only had my own experience listening to various sound reproducing systems to guide my own path into creating my own systems. I had very few preconceptions or biases, I didn't yet have the need to be cynical or judgemental, therefore, I was like an open book, I could easily trust my own ears/mind to judge the qualities of sound that appealed to me. And so this was my method for building my first system, and remained the method for subsequent system building.

I'm not sure I'd like to be novice audiophile today, I'd have a terrible time making decisions on which direction to pursue in everything audiophile. Who can you trust? Here we are extolling the virtues of this virtually unknown dac, I understand the cynicism of outside voices, why should any of us be trusted, what are our credentials?

And so audiophile's attempts to objectify audio language and certify themselves as experts to be trusted is highly questionable. Obviously, at some point individuals make choices as to audio equipment purchases. Based on the many requests for guidance on this forum and many others, any number of individuals are letting others guide their purchases, they are placing their trust in certain others. I further presume the more experienced of us are at least somewhat influenced by other audiophiles, even if we are consciously oblivious to that influence.

And so the point is, its very likely virtually every single audiophile makes valiant attempts to objectify an inherently subjective experience. I can't live in your shoes, and I don't have your assemblage of equipment in your room, I know virtually nothing about your audio system listening experience! And here I am extolling virtues of a dac with my unique audio language, audio system, room and ear/brain listening complex. Seems quite useless!

Which brings me back to this overly long winded spiel. I purchased 005 virtually blind, not a single review, absolutely no guidance other than internal pictures and description of parts used. My only guide in this purchase was my knowledge of audio parts gained through many years of modding various audio components. And that was hard gained knowledge, I destroyed a couple diy projects in the early days. How any of this makes me qualified to be a guide as to any dac purchase is beyond me.

Melm's honest appraisal on the subjectivity of audiophile language was food for thought here. This recent article by Roger Skoff also great stimulus, https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0322/Disagree_About_Audio.htm