I wrote to the designer and manufacturer, Jinbo Li, this morning to tell him of amirm’s review. He responded though it was late at night for him. I have never known whether it’s in his English or Google translate:
__________________________________________
Thank you so much for sharing. I read this post carefully.
I can explain the content of the subject test through our design experience.
It took me more than three years to design DA005. Roughly estimated, I had done nearly ten different designs. In the test, I found that if all the parameters were set according to the "best" of the instrument test, the final sound was not what I wanted.
Our development process also confirmed the widely debated idea that hiFI systems are generally not sound good or bad through test instruments. Any experienced electronics engineer can do it well, and it doesn’t require much effort or musical awareness. I don’t really want to argue too much about that. The customers who have heard about our products have the best say.
__________________________________________
I am not an electronics expert at all but do offer some comments on what he wrote.
It sounds like he’s not surprised at all, nor disappointed about the findings.
Jinbo says that it is relatively easy for an experienced electronics engineer to design a DAC that measures well. I believe him. We have seen many DACs from all over the world that seem to measure very well in the amirm tests. Some are relatively inexpensive. Their audio quality? Often, not so much.
I have thought, from the beginning, that this DAC was developed with a lot of listening. It motivated my early purchase. My reasoning was that there were a great many expensive parts inside. Those two GAD gold and silver foil capacitors, for example, cost about $95 each. I don’t think a designer puts components of that quality (and expense) into a unit without careful listening and a determination that they make a difference. For unlike a popular DAC chip, perhaps, they will not add to the marketing potential. The same may be said of the O-Ring transformer with silver-plated windings, or the bank of super-capacitors, or the . . . . there’s lots of stuff listed on the mu-sound.com 005 web page. Truly, a designer’s DAC.
He goes on to say that maximizing measured results often resulted in a reduction of sound quality in his estimation. Given the result, it’s hard to take issue with that assertion. One of the interesting aspects of the Musetec 005 design is that it achieves a very high level of audio performance with a very conventional design. By high level I mean (besides our listening) it has been compared with some very expensive DACs and while some have preferred one over the other it has never, it seems, been embarrassed by the comparison. And by the conventional design, I mean just ESS chips, no FPGA digital to analog function, no discrete R2R, no "Ring DAC", etc. Just a design that can be seen in dozens of other DACs, but refined to bring the audio that it does. An exception though for the super capacitors and associated circuitry.
My only disappointment is that he does publish technical specifications that one should be able to replicate with technical tests.