Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

To change the subject.

An interesting thing happened today. I brought back my CODA 07x preamp to my office and removed my Benchmark LA4 preamp from the office. I learned that the CODA 07x maybe useful with my, soon to be delivered, RAAL VM-1a headphone amp (it has only 1 input). So, in it went to the office system.

I had a ROON software update done today before the gear changes, I was listening with my Musetec 005 DAC after the update and not the Benchmark DAC3B. Both DACs were working flawlessly in the past with either one of my preamps.

Today the DAC3B had a lot of distortion on the music, this was easy to hear with ADELE 21 stream from my FLAC version on my hard drive. On the Musetec 005 I had no distortion, just perfect sound. I did some investigation (changing XLR’s, preamps, USB cables) and narrowed it down to the DAC3B now requiring the HEADROOM MANAGEMENT feature enabled in ROON. I found that values less than -3 on the HEADROOM ADJUSTMENT fixed the distortion I was hearing.

I am testing all of this on my RAAL SR1a headphone which are uber revealing.

Interesting aspect of this issue is that the Musetec 005 did not have the distortion after the ROON update and the DAC3B did not need the -3 or less adjustment prior to the software update.

Now that this is all fixed, I am doing A | B comparisons of the 2 DACs with 2 streams from 2 OpticalRendu’s. It is so easy to hear the differences in these 2 DACs. The Musetec is such a clear winner with the RAAL SR1a. When I get my tube RAAL VM-1a amp I am not sure if the Musetec 005 will be the winner.

Ok, back to whatever we were discussing.

(9) Help explain intersample overs, please? | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum

Is it possible to ask the manufacturer to correct what is reported on the technical specifications or to refute the ASR tests?

Is it possible to explain to the followers of ASR that what is not measurable at the moment does not necessarily exist?

they seem to me to be two essential questions, answering which would put an end to the diatribe

I imagine Musetec are reviewing their options at the moment, maybe they will do their own tests. ASR is not a licensed testing agency and in the real world their comments hold no credence.

As was said earlier if a DAC with poor test results sounded good then that's ASR completely discredited.

I believe @sns was one of the first buyers so we could compare his serial number with someone who has bought this month. We'd have a very good indication of customer satisfaction. There are zero complaints on the internet about the 005.

Every one of those sales was trouble free and the customers happy with their purchase. Bar two or three who preferred something else IIRC.

All on ASR have been brainwashed into believing that only measurements matter and ALL cables, regardless of price sound the same.

Now even those with a fraction of a brain cell can agree that's not correct, unless you have genuine hearing difficulties.

ASR is flawed and a fraud. Yes different performance results were published by Musetec but ASR is not a legal entity, it's a hobbyists site for the delusional that want to call themselves scientists and engineers and doctors.

So if you want a 005 it needs 6-8 weeks to break in, whether you believe in that or not.

Serial # MS50097, purchased 11/20.

Based on my understanding of measurement crowd, its not that they don't listen, rather its best to rely on measurements vs listening. While some of them may admit to limits of measurements, still beats human senses and our individual perceptions of those senses. Human biases of all kinds enter the equation for them, can never be overcome by training, experience, etc. Measurements always retain their superiority over listening, inconclusive results from blind testing prove this superiority. This will never change, written in stone, really is no point in arguing the point in this thread or any thread, total futility.

There is some hope though, periodically, I observe a former measurement adherent joining the dark side after having heard a component or components that resolve to the point where they hear formerly unheard sound qualities like texture, perhaps even color. At this point they now come to the understanding there are sound qualities measurements fail to account for. So, yes, I'd agree at least some of the measurement cohort has not heard extremely revealing systems. Based on the mostly relatively inexpensive components tested over there I believe this true. Now, they occasionally test more expensive components, which test middle of pack, what's the point of listening or purchasing when its far more costly than equally or better measuring equipment. The thing is I'm sure Amir has heard these much more costly components, and likely entire systems. Can he not hear differences with the much more costly components and systems? Or is it he can't or won't admit to it? You have to realize their entire argument can't take a relatively middle of pack or poorer measuring component beating out best measuring components, this would be admitting listening more valid than measuring. And then take an entire system of such components where these gains may be exponential. For those of us relying on listening, correlations or non-correlations between measurements and listening isn't surprising, upsetting, nor does it INVALIDATE measurements. Measurements illuminate the known knowns, don't account for the known unknowns. The difference is we hear the known unknowns, they either don't or won't admit to it.

And I do get lordmelton's reiteration of necessity of burn in with 005. Yes, it's sound quality changes over burn in, extremely likely measurements won't change but sound quality does. Measurement cohort can't admit to burn in changing sound since it challenges entire measurement argument. Seems to me measurement cohort has themselves in small little box, everything has to conform to this tiny little box, can't allow or explain outliers or unexplained phenomenon.

still here debating the goodness of the measurements?
measurements are good, no doubt!
but obviously it is not possible to measure everything.
science is a modeling of reality, the more accurate that model is, the closer we get to "truth".
since there is no mathematical model capable of interpreting reality in all respects, we must also rely on the human senses.
we must not be obtuse to think that only the measurements matter, nor to think that only the senses matter.
getting these two souls to agree seems an impossible undertaking!

poor people!!!