Musetec (LKS) MH-DA005 DAC
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."
- ...
- 1537 posts total
@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. |
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 |
| Post removed |
- 1537 posts total