Six DAC Comparison

 

 

After finishing my initial comparison of six DACs without coming to a final conclusion about which of the DACs I enjoyed most, I decided to devote the past month or so to listening more intently and forming a more definitive conclusion.

I struggled with the words to convey my final thoughts because any of my four favorites provided a very enjoyable sonic result in my system. It seems that maybe, after everything else in one’s system is dialed in, the specific DAC is important but not solely critical to achieving a successful result.

Another outcome of my past month of listening was a better understanding how critical it is to dial-in the every aspect of the subject component and the rest of one’s system in a manner that allows the component to perform at its best. Playing with inputs, cables, subwoofer settings, and more helped me determine that I had initially underestimated the performance levels of the Merason and the SMc DAC-2. Also, by more intently listening, I was able to better discern the differences between the two Mojo Audio DACs.

My final thoughts on the four top DACs are discussed below.

IMO, the Mojo Audio Mystique X SE NCZ is the most capable of the DACs in the comparison and my overall favorite of the six DACs. If I were to choose just one DAC for my main system, it would be the X SE NCZ. The X SE line shares the natural organic sound signature of Mojo Audio’s previous DACs, including the EVO Pro that I still have here, and also displays a level of resolution that extends beyond Mojo Audio’s previous DACs. This is most noticeable in the bass, which is deep, powerful, and defined, with subterranean impact that exceeds what I hear from most other DACs. Continuing through the midrange, the additional resolution is noticeable in the dimensionality and staging of musicians and singers, that are well-positioned in space and more dimensional than with the EVO Pro. The treble is sweet and extended.

The Mojo Audio Mystique EVO Pro has been a very enjoyable reference in my system for a couple of years. It is as discussed in my earlier write-up and is every bit as natural and organic sounding as the X SE line. I have no doubt that many would find it an improvement in musicality, compared to other DACs. Compared to the X SE NCZ, the EVO Pro includes still prodigious (yet fuller vs. more defined) bass, and a bit darker and warmer sonic signature. Sound staging seems more homogenous, sort of like you might hear from a live concert, compared to the X SE line, which seems to stage more precisely wrt the placement of musicians and singers. Some may find the presentation of the EVO Pro to be kinder to lesser quality recordings. It also retains the sweet, clear, and never fatiguing high frequencies of the X SE line.

The Merason DAC1 MkII, in comparison to the two Mojo Audio DACs, is more reserved yet a bit more refined in its presentation. Bass is solid and well proportioned but not quite as impactful. This is easily compensated by adjusting subwoofers. The mids are not quite as dimensional as with the Mojo Audio DACs, and the high frequencies are all present but displayed in more of a supporting role. Everything comes out wonderfully crystal clear in a presentation that is truly reminiscent of vinyl without the pops and hiss. I enjoyed all of my listening to whatever types of music I was playing, and I never wished for something more when the Merason was in my system. It is a wonderful DAC to listen to, and IMO offers a bit more refinement but a bit less excitement, when compared to the Mojo Audio DACs.

In revisiting the SMc Audio DAC-2 GTE-24, I found that even though the DAC-2 will usually process 96 kHz signals, sending it that higher sampling rate signal may be responsible the occasionally raggedy high frequencies I heard during my initial listening. By strictly limiting the sampling rate to 48 kHz, as recommended by SMc Audio, I achieved smooth, clear, high frequencies, good resolution, and nothing less than outstanding sound from the DAC-2 GTE-24. It displays a similar rich tonality as the Mojo Audio DACs, with some of the refinement of the Merason, but a level of excitement that is closer to the Mojo Audio DACs. Bass is solid but, like the Merason, is more proportional than with the Mojo Audio DACs, and can be fully compensated to the desired level of impact by adjusting my dual subs.

Benjamin from Mojo Audio again.

I hadn't read this thread in a while so I'm playing catch up a bit.

I've been seeing things about USB input issue, I2S, and clocking, that I thought I should address.

First of all, we've never had any problems with customers connecting to our JL Sounds USB input module who were using any form of Windows, Apple OS X, or Linux.

The Rose 150B streamer uses an odd-ball Android OS which is the problem. 

Most of the modern streamer manufactures us Linux which we find to not only be 100% compatible without any need to download a driver, but we also find to be the best sounding. There's a reason why nearly all the major streamer manufacturers have switched to Linux in recent years. 

As for clocking, to say that OCXO is better than femto clocking is like saying that all-wheel-drive is better than front-wheel-drive or rear-wheel-drive. The applications of each can vary considerably and each has its advantages and disadvantages in certain situations. Do they use all-wheel-drive in NASCAR, F1, or Drag Racing?

We've compared every popular and many less well-known USB input modules on the market and have consistently found the JL Sounds modules sounded the best.

And I'm not talking about sounding better by a small factor.

We did blind A/B tests of several different brands of USB input modules. We build a DAC that we could plug in and out different USB input modules like you could roll tubes. We did extensive listening tests with a number of local audiophiles playing through their own systems.  The results were quite consistent: 100% of them picked the JL Sounds module as #1 and the M2-Tech module as #2. All commented on how close those two sounded to each other. There were a number of different responses as to which was #3, #4, and #5, but 100% of the people who made the comparison selected the same as two USB input modules as #1 and #2.

One of the most unexpected things we experienced and heard comments about was how blown away these audiophiles were as to how much of a difference in sound quality the USB input module actually made. One person even commented that if he didn't know better he would have thought that we had switched speakers. 

So clocking is certainly important, but it is one of many factors to consider.

As for I2S...

I'm sorry to burst some of your bubbles, but I2S is one of the stupidest things to come to digital audio in as long as I can remember.

First of all, the technical specification for I2S is "less than 4" from the DAC chip" which means it was engineered as a protocol to only be used inside of a DAC.

All component-to-component digital music transmission protocols are data embedded with clocking: USB...S/PDIF...AES...optical...Ethernet...all of them. 

The flawed logic the promoters of I2S give is "the clocking gets corrupted" which is why in I2S they have three channels: data with embedded clocking, bit clock, and word clock. 

OK...see if this makes any sense to you: if clocking gets corrupted with a single channel traveling on one wire then how would it make any sense to attempt to coordinate three separate clocks on three separate wires?

It makes no sense.

If I2S was actually better they would be using it in recording studios and they most certainly do not.

If I2S was actually better then nearly every company in the audiophile industry would be promoting it and they most certainly do not.

There are a small group of Chi-Fi manufactures who started promoting I2S and the audio-fools bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

If I2S sounds better in a specific DAC it is only because the other digital inputs on that DAC are lacking, not because I2S is inherently better.

And I've lost count of the number of customers who owned and loved one of those Chi-Fi I2S DACs who upgraded to one of our Mystique DACs and are now back to using the USB input. 

I think that says it all. 

BTW, I never bought into all that MQA hype either.

Refreshing to hear a no BS commentary from a manufacturer once in a while.  Thanks.  

@fuzzbutt17 Thank you for the detailed USB and I2S explanation. Very helpful in that there is quite a bit of chatter using a DDC to covert USB to I2S, coax, AES… I never understood or had the need and have used USB on all my DAC’s. I am currently really enjoying your Mojo Mystique EVO B4B 21 happily using USB. Keep the Mojo rolling!

If I2S was actually better they would be using it in recording studios and they most certainly do not [...] a small group of Chi-Fi manufactures started promoting I2S and the audio-fools bought into it hook-line-and-sinker.

😂😂😂🤣😂