Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

Since someone on a prior post said that the setting they used was SLOW-L and DPLL BW07 I used that today on my speakers, though I did not notice much but I was not paying too much attention. However, tonight I decided to test with the SRa and with this setup there is one difference I noticed.

I am using my RAAL SR1a headphone | CODA 07x preamp | NAD M22 V2 amp | Musetec 005. The SR1a can sound bright with the wrong setup and when i was using BW07 I was feeling a little fatigue on treble intensive musical passages. I replayed those passages with the setting changed to BW01 and the fatigue I had before did not reappear.

I will be using the BW01 setting on headphones and BW07 (and test others) with my speakers.

I realize that, though I’m the OP here, apart from descriptions of its insides and very few well chosen words in the initial post, I haven’t offered a review of the Musetec DAC. I guess I should, but as so much has already been written about the Musetec here and here I’ll do it in a slightly different way:

Musical DAC vs. Detailed DAC - A Distinction Without Merit

We all know when a new DAC provides good detail. We say we hear things in familiar tracks that we didn’t hear before. Actually, I don’t think that’s generally true. But, you respond, with the new DAC at one minute and 23 seconds into the track I heard a note on an oboe that I had not heard on this track I have listened to many times before. Well, I maintain that with your old DAC, had I alerted you to that note when one minute 23 seconds came around, you would then have heard the note. What actually happened with your old DAC is that you actually heard, but did not take notice of, the note. Why was that?

When I go to a live orchestral concert I often hear things in familiar music that I had not taken notice of at home listening to recordings. That is because at the concert, all of the instruments are there exposing their full beautiful envelope of overtones, the full texture of the instruments in their spaces. They glisten. That makes it impossible not to take notice of them. To me that’s the clue.

We often hear the expression that such and such a DAC is very musical, or something close to that. Usually, I take that to mean just that the listener likes the DAC. However, when I call a component musical, I mean something more specific. I mean that the component makes it sound like the musician is using an especially fine instrument, which by the way is often done for recordings, and that the musician is skilled at tone production, an attribute of a fine musician. For the audio component that means it is revealing the full envelope of the instrument’s overtones. This forces me not only to hear the instrument, but to take notice of it--it is no longer a colorless addition to the volume of the sound--it is more specifically a whole complex of beautiful sounds in its space setting it apart from the rest, that simply commands my full attention. Glistening. Closer to a live concert.

I’m not here writing of the associated noises that are part of much instrumental playing, the initial chuff of a strong bow pull on a violin or the clicking of the keys on a clarinet. You will hear that too. But it is the richness of tone that comes from a fine instrument expertly played that I’m focusing on.

So, as I see it, in order to have a musical DAC, it must be a detailed DAC. It must transmit clearly and correctly what we used to call the low level information. Here I am spotlighting the instrumental overtones, but exactly the same reasoning accounts for all the spatial clues. It’s the low level information. Just as it was/is for analog, by the way.

So the bottom line: you can probably write it for me. I think the Musetec 005 provides that. I don’t doubt that some other DACs provide it as well. There is no trade-off here. Musicality and detail. It’s not either-or; it’s both.  A distinction without merit.

@Melm  Very well said.  I agree.

@Melm, very good observations regarding low-level detail/musicality.  With skill, you largely overcame the pitfalls of using words to describe music and gear with respect to the topic of your post.

In my view, you left nothing out.  So the following comment is not a critique or indication of an omission on your part.

Can I add that the listening-room’s ambient noise-floor and acoustics, too high and unsorted—respectively, are headwinds that conceal the low-level detail one’s gear is capable of presenting.  

Ideally, the process of ensuring the links in the chain are as strong as possible is fun because it tends to be virtually without end.
:)




 

@rc22 
Thanks for the kind words.

You raise a very good point about the interaction of low level information, dynamic range, and ambient noise.  The equipment gets better and better.  The recordings get better and better.  The Dynamic Range of the Musetec is given at 136 db.  Recordings will not get near there.  In typical domestic environments, of course, they shouldn't.

My own experience with symphonic recordings, and it has been written of by others, is that dynamic ranges on some recordings already stretch the limits.  I could cite some BIS recordings, as have some critics in (internet) print.    Raise the level so you can hear the quietest passages clearly and the FFFs will blast you out of your seat.  Adjust for the loudest and the softest fade away.  As I hear it the Musetec provides the full dynamic range of the recording.  Perhaps I am affected in this particular way as I sit relatively close to the speakers.