Up-sampling externally from s/w, like hqplayer, is only helpful when the DAC can work in a NOS mode (non over-sampling), otherwise the sound quality is mostly determined by the SRC within the DAC itself. Good candidates for nos DACs are T+A, Holo Audio, Denafrips and this is why so many folks use HqP with these DACs. Not sure if the 005 has a nos mode as well.
Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC
Some history: I was the OP on a four year old thread about the Chinese LKS MH-DA004 DAC. It achieved an underground buzz. The open architecture of its predecessor MH-DA003 made it the object of a lot of user mods, usually to its analog section, rolling op amps or replacing with discrete. The MH-DA004 with its new ESS chips and JFET analog section was called better then the modified older units. It has two ES9038pro DAC chips deliberately run warm, massive power supply, powered Amanero USB board, JFET section, 3 Crystek femtosecond clocks, Mundorf caps, Cardas connectors, etc., for about $1500. For this vinyl guy any reservation about ESS chips was resolved by the LKS implimentaion, but their revelation of detail was preserved, something that a listener to classic music especially appreciated. I made a list of DACs (many far more expensive) it was compared favorably to in forums. Modifications continued, now to clocks and caps. Components built to a price can be improved by costlier parts and the modifiers wrote glowingly of the SQ they achieved.
Meanwhile, during the 4 years after release of the MH-DA004, LKS (now Musetec) worked on the new MH-DA005 design, also with a pair of ES9038pro chips. This time he used more of the best components available. One torroidal transformer has silver plated copper. Also banks of super capacitors that act like batteries, solid silver hookup wire, 4 femtoclocks each costing multiples of the Crysteks, a revised Amanero board, more of the best European caps and a new partitioned case. I can't say cost NO object, but costs well beyond. A higher price, of course. Details at http://www.mu-sound.com/DA005-detail.html
The question, surely, is: How does it sound? I'm only going to answer indirectly for the moment. I thought that the MH-DA004 was to be my last DAC, or at least for a very long time. I was persuaded to part with my $$ by research, and by satisfaction with the MH-DA004. Frankly, I have been overwhelmed by the improvement; just didn't think it was possible. Fluidity, clarity, bass extension. A post to another board summed it up better than I can after listening to piano trios: "I have probably attended hundreds of classical concerts (both orchestral and chamber) in my life. I know what live sounds like in a good and bad seat and in a good and mediocre hall. All I can say is HOLY CRAP, this sounds like the real thing from a good seat in a good hall. Not an approximation of reality, but reality."
Meanwhile, during the 4 years after release of the MH-DA004, LKS (now Musetec) worked on the new MH-DA005 design, also with a pair of ES9038pro chips. This time he used more of the best components available. One torroidal transformer has silver plated copper. Also banks of super capacitors that act like batteries, solid silver hookup wire, 4 femtoclocks each costing multiples of the Crysteks, a revised Amanero board, more of the best European caps and a new partitioned case. I can't say cost NO object, but costs well beyond. A higher price, of course. Details at http://www.mu-sound.com/DA005-detail.html
The question, surely, is: How does it sound? I'm only going to answer indirectly for the moment. I thought that the MH-DA004 was to be my last DAC, or at least for a very long time. I was persuaded to part with my $$ by research, and by satisfaction with the MH-DA004. Frankly, I have been overwhelmed by the improvement; just didn't think it was possible. Fluidity, clarity, bass extension. A post to another board summed it up better than I can after listening to piano trios: "I have probably attended hundreds of classical concerts (both orchestral and chamber) in my life. I know what live sounds like in a good and bad seat and in a good and mediocre hall. All I can say is HOLY CRAP, this sounds like the real thing from a good seat in a good hall. Not an approximation of reality, but reality."
- ...
- 1534 posts total
@debjit_g AFAIK the 005 is NOS and there is no facility in the software for up-sampling. However the Denafrips does up-sample even in NOS mode, there's something I saw on YT about it. |
If 005 works primarily in NOS mode, then one might try myriads of HqP filter/modulator combo to see if they like the sound of it. It all depends on personal taste - some like, some just don't.
what I meant is up-sampling externally in s/w, like HqP or Roon.
yes, that correct. However, there is a big difference between engaging the nos/os mode. I had the original Terminator and the difference between these two modes is quiet significant, depending how revealing rest of your system is. |
There is a distinction to be made with playback vs recording in hi res digital. Every one of my listening sessions includes both original digital and analog mastered recordings, so we're talking all recording from sometime in 80's back all being analog, 80's-90's a mix, 2000's pretty much all digital. If I'm going to generalize, I find analog mastered recordings more natural, analog like. Digital mastered generally less of this analog like nature. But then there are the standout digital mastered and analog remasters in either redbook or hi res that are superior to almost any analog mastered redbook NON-REMASTERED recording. For the analog masters this suggests the remastering responsible for sq improvement, rather than hi res aspect. As I mentioned previously, I can't say I can confidently determine sq difference between these 16/44 vs hi res remastered analog recordings. So then we come to these superior digitally mastered recordings, both 16/44 and hi res. These easily compete and sometimes exceed the best analog remasters, I hear wider freq. response, superior micro and macro dynamics, an ease and even luxurious sense of vinyl playback that I don't quite get with the best analog masters.
The main issue I hear with most contemporary digital recordings is well documented dynamic limitations. This became salient during last nights listening session, very nice analog master and remastered recordings, then going to some modern recordings, clearly heard loss of MICRO DYNAMICS, not so much the macro, but this loss made me not want to listen anymore of these type recordings. Micro dynamics is where the life of the performance lives, take this away and you have mere sound reproduction, no illusion of performers in room. No amount of dsp or hi res can bring back whats been lost in mastering process.
So, assuming we can't bring back what is lost in mastering via hi res or dsp. How about these superior recordings, how can dsp improve upon the superior master? If mastering is wonderful, why would I want to add something to an already wonderful recipe, I'm as likely to ruin it as improve it. If the dac and system sans dsp are interpreting master recording as intended there should be no need for dsp. So, I can understand there are recordings that could use some massaging, the engineer and/or producer may have created a recipe that could be improved upon. In this case I can understand the judicious use of dsp, the problem with using dsp is that the same dsp settings are set universally, that setting may be perfect for one recording, not so good for another. DSP that could be applied uniquely to each recording could be useful, how to implement this? So, to my way of thinking, dsp is useful only for system limitations. I suggest the best we can do is having a dac with global sound qualities in alignment with our preferences. |
- 1534 posts total