Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC

Hi @sns

I guess in this respect we see it a bit differently. Once you have taken the time to carefully listen and judge various parts, what is fussing over measurements going to yield post listening confirmation? The designer could have taken the popular/typical approach and just resorted to relying on Op-amps. He’d gotten pristine measurements.

I have no doubt that he uses measurements as an aid, some are fundamentally necessary and important, no doubt. But by a country mile I prefer his approach. Just sit there, use your ears and listen to what you hear.

I would not be at all surprised if during part comparisons during design development he had parts that measured better yet sound worse. I bet if he were asked, he would admit this to be true. That’s why presumably he puts such priority on listening. Bravo!!! If I misinterpreted  your point, my sincere apologies.

Charles

@charles1dad

I would not be at all surprised if during part comparisons during design development he had parts that measured better yet sound worse. I bet if he were asked, he would admit this to be true.

Well, no surprise. In my "summary" of the issue I wrote, "At various stages he says he made changes that could improve measurements but reversed them if the sound quality, as he heard it, was not as good."

@melm 

👍

Thanks, just as I suspected.

Charles

@charles1dad I'm only posing this as interested spectator in observing designers as they voice audio components. Presumption is measurements and listening go hand in hand, design of circuits using individual component values in order to attain particular desired goals, these goals being specific measured values from that particular circuit. At this point designer places circuit into component and listens, depending on outcome of listening test, circuit modified via replacement of previous components and/or their values, or leave circuit as is. Point is, both measurements and listening go into final design.

What I'm interested in is, circuits designed to certain measured parameters, Would not more precise instrumentation possibly provide the means to uncover some  anomaly hiding below threshold of previous inferior instrumentation? Assuming it could,  it follows removing that anomaly would change sound quality.

Perhaps 005 could have measured better on bench AND maintained high quality sound with better instrumentation. I can't know if Musetec's own measurements when designing 005 left some anomaly uncovered or they intentionally designed with the knowledge it would measure exactly as it did for ASR.  If I were audio designer I'd like my equipment to both sound and measure well. Just on marketing and sales front, assuming one's product will be measured at some point, it would be good to cover oneself on measurements.

I'd also like to hear far more from audio manufacturers on this front. If measurements don't count for much, state this clearly on sales and marketing front. Otherwise many will assume manufacturer has been exposed and had something to hide. I've seen this very thing with 005, many will never take this dac seriously after ASR review. Many rate both specs and listening as important in making purchasing decisions.

@sns I'd also like to hear far more from audio manufacturers on this front. If measurements don't count for much, state this clearly on sales and marketing front. 
 

Agreed

As I have said numerous times before, measurements are necessary and play an important role. In an overall hierarchy, I just believe that actual listening/hearing trumps test measurement. I would love for manufactures/designers to identify which measurements are most pertinent and relevant. I don’t believe all measurements are of equal weight.

which are the measurements that have at least some reasonable correlation with product sound quality? It would be legitimate progress to get that sorted out and publicly identified. IMHO Musetec 005 designer took the right approach.

Charles