Introduction
Why am I here? Am I seeking an endgame all-in-one audio device? Am I seeking an amplifier for every conceivable, non-electrostatic headphone? Am I seeking a sound that will draw me in, wisp me away on a magic carpet ride of sonic bliss, while enveloping my auditory senses in a cloud of ecstasy? The short answer to these questions is no. And please, just a moment of your time for an explanation below.
I am an audiophile - there, I said it. I admit it. I am enthusiastic beyond the norm regarding audio playback - with particular regard to reproduction of audio that has been stored in a digital medium. And I have been interested in headphones since the early 2000s, when a co-worker, owning the Sennheiser HD600, brought these to work and said, have a listen. Helplessly Hoping was the song - I reflect on it today, and it seems an apt start. Though I feel hopeful and optimistic as I enter the Renaissance period of my audio journey, it is after many years of what I term the Dark Ages, the time between 2003 and 2014. These years were when portable MP3 and multi-channel DVD became dominant technologies, both slowing the growth of well-recorded and well-produced stereo music and accelerating the expense of consumer products with technology suitable to listen to good recordings. During those years, I listened only to expensive players and a small collection of DVD-Audio and SACD discs, having read in a magazine it was the correct way. And I had one solid state amplifier. What choice did I have as a headphone enthusiast in 2003? What choice did I need? On paper, my amplifier was overkill, being able to drive simultaneous two pair of HD650 headphones, to ear bleeding volume, when set to the lowest of its three gains. Then in December of 2014, I chanced at the purchase of a Schiit Fulla and my first audition of what modern high fidelity could be. I had downgraded from a setup with an MSRP of $2700 to a USB dongle costing only $79, yet I was at that moment closer to my ideal sound than I’d been in the 10+ years of prior pursuit.
Am I in pursuit of endgame sound? Absolutely not, and an immediate rush towards endgame may lead one to an invitation, an extended stay at a nice place, where you’ll get plenty of rest, relaxation, and hourly observation. I fear there are too many styles of music and variations or interpretations of what defines a musically accurate audio system to call a single setup the end. And more importantly, there are too many moods. I heard a speech at a recent audio event in Atlanta, where a prominent member of our society spoke on a topic, with a simple hook or point of audience understanding - the brain is the most critical component of the audio chain. The speaker was clever and I am not, so I’ll try to explain via self-reference. There are times when I have heard a sound closer to endgame - this often while watching a YouTube video with my headphones plugged into the speaker jack of a standard desktop computer. Does that mean I should sell my solid state amplifier, tube amplifier, and DAC - downgrade my collection of audio hardware to just a PC and stream MP3 across the Internet? The answer is no. There is definite truth to the adaptability of the brain and how it interprets audio - there is also truth that better audio playback equipment exists, and that it can aid the listening experience. I am not expecting the Moon to be endgame, if such a thing can exist. But I do believe the audiophile pursuit is a noble venture. And this is the primary reason I have interest in the Moon.
The first and most variable piece of audio gear we should evaluate in any quest for better audio reproduction is the transducer. However headphones can be a tricky challenge to playback gear due to their diversity - the load imparted by the transducer on the amplifier can vary dramatically based on the design of the headphone. Immediately, I remove the bookends of the transducer world, the HE-6 and IEMs, from my selection. I used an IEM during my dark years, but find these too cumbersome to insert, take out, and keep in place for just the right sound. I listen to music only in a quiet room, so an open headphone design will do. I also have not joined the ranks of the HE-6 power starved. The HE-1000 is my headphone requiring the most current to play properly. And the Moon absolutely must play this headphone properly. I also expect a competent amplifier such as the Moon to play properly with my least current hungry headphone, a Grado PS1000e. And a competent amplifier must play properly with a voltage hungry headphone, like the HD800S. These three headphones I will test. Though in no uncertain terms, if an amplifier cannot adequately play any of these three, I will not buy. My expectation is that I can use the Moon to properly assess other headphones that are new to me. And per general amplifier use, I want the ability to choose the headphone that best suits my mood for listening today.
Last, I do not want to or expect to be transported away on a cloud of hyperbole. I am looking for a competent tool, which can be used to assess the competency of other parts of the audio chain, those other parts being headphones, sources, and to some extent other amplifiers. I expect the Moon to play, and get out of the way of any source I use. I do not want to be swooned by its amplifier, adding its own coloration to the sound between my headphone and my source. I want to be able to discern the colors of other amplifiers apart from the neutrality of the Moon. I expect the Moon also to play and announce clearly to the listener the differences between sources so these are easily noted. Overall, I expect a competent, honest sound.
Package
This is the part where I tell you the box is yay high and oh so this and that wide - these are details you can find online. I will tell you that the Moon fit everywhere I went to place it. I had no issue on a small table in my family room, adjacent my laptop. I also had no issue on the smallish remainder of a stand, next to my fixed stack of DAC and two amplifiers. The best amplifier that fit on this shelf was a Cavalli Audio Liquid Carbon. Items that have fit well in the family room space are the JDS Labs The Element, Grace Design m9xx, and a Schiit stack consisting of an Asgard on top of a Bifrost. Things which have not fit so well in these spaces are Audio-GD DAC-19 and Ayre QB-9. There is one dimension that might explain - the width of the Moon is 7 inches - the two products I had trouble fitting were 8.5 and 9.5 inches, which is slightly above half-width of the typical consumer electronics product. The family room is the first space I use for almost all new audio products, and the shelf is my permanent space. Thus having the Moon fit here made it feel immediately welcome.
An open sitting area is another place I like to listen, where appearance is more important to me than size. Anything I would use here with regularity must look good without a large mess of wires connected all around. The Moon requires only a USB and a power cable in back and a headphone plugged in front. Its setup is simple and clean. I find the black box visually appealing too, recalling the appearance of my classic Denon disc players. The front is brushed metal. There is a nice texture to the metal material on the top and sides. The lightly abrasive finish gives the appearance of a product well-built and capable of withstanding the occasional scratch or rub without gouging. I assume there were a few people who used the unit prior to my audition, and it still looked clean and new.
About the only negative is a slight flexing at the very bottom, on each side of the case. This I noticed while moving or unpacking the Moon. Once seated, everything seen and touched is firm. The four rubber feet keep the Moon from sliding across the table. Never once did I feel the need to hold the Moon in place as I plugged in new headphones. When I did venture around back to plug in a pair of RCA cables, these connections too felt sturdy.
The front layout is simple - having only power on/off and input select buttons, both of which feel nice to the touch. A single blue LED above the power button is lit while the unit is on. The front-facing volume knob rotates cleanly. I found the screw hole for the knob, opposite the visual dot on the front, helpful to locate the volume position when using the Moon in a dark room. A friend too noticed that the volume indicator dot is a physical indentation, so it could be used as a point of reference for volume.
The only external feature missing is a readout for volume, which the 430HAD has. This aids in A/B comparisons. Once a volume is adjusted for and measured as a reference point, recovery to that same volume is easier with a digital readout. And I only make note of this because some of the competing products do include this feature, such as the Grace Design m9xx and Ayre Codex. I had no issues adjusting the volume to a comfortable desired level for just listening.
Features
Those needing balanced inputs and outputs should look to its bigger brother the NEO 430HAD. Otherwise every key feature for unbalanced audio is standard in the NEO 230HAD. It has two sets of analog inputs - RCA on the back and a ⅛” TRS phono on the front. It has two sets of RCA analog outputs on the back - a static line-level output and a variable pre-amplifier output. It has a competent DAC inside - think of the DAC as a baseline source, comparable to other sources you may wish to measure. The DAC accepts external digital input from optical, coax (2 inputs), and USB. Via USB, the sound is clean, which is admirable from my sub-standard USB source, an old laptop. I used my Regen for ultimate listening evaluation, but one need not use this for day-to-day listening or when using a better source.
The user toggles through the inputs via a single button on the front. There are two columns of red LED - the left column indicates the input source chosen and the right column indicates the bit rate of the audio fed from an external source into the DAC. Rather than account for every possible rate, there are just a few LED. There are two base rate LED to indicate 44.1 and 48 kHz. There are two multiplier LED to indicate 2x and 4x. The only complication is for playback of 384kHz, which is shown by the 48 kHz base rate and both the 2x and 4x multipliers. There is also a DSD base rate. This too can be combined with the 2x or 4x multiplier when engaged to play higher sample rate data.
The DAC processes PCM. More important, to my ears, I found no issue with playback of basic 16-bit, 44.1kHz resolution audio, the standard format of Red Book, and what I majority use in my daily listening and as my primary track selection for testing done in this review. Some DACs will sound their best for playback of higher resolution audio. The Moon was competent at all audio rates. Though I do not use DSD, I did test to verify the NEO 230HAD will play DSD tracks sampled at 1x, 2x, and 4x data rates through USB. I had a minor issue with DSD at 4x. Instead of displaying the LED for DSD and 4x, it showed the LED for 44.1kHz and both the 2x and 4x, meaning PCM at 352.8kHz. However this was also shown in the playback software display. So I’ll attribute this to an issue in software or the hardware of my computer, and not the Moon. I do note though I did not have this issue with a Chord Mojo, which correctly played DSD at 4x using the same track and same software.
Sound
I connected a USB cable and power cord to the Moon and plugged my HD650 headphones to the front, seeking only at first to verify the box was functional and all sources could play. But as I listened to the sound, I immediately heard something was different - something in the sound was new to me, in a way I was unaccustomed to hearing. It was more different than the typical delta I expect from a new amplifier. So I paused at the question - is this something new a good, or something new a bad? And a second question seemed relevant - how does one go about the measurement of a tool, which itself is meant to measure other products. If I haven’t already, I am certainly about to take a divergent path. First, I’m going to use my ears to measure. And what I will be measuring are products I will not name. To you, these are simply my primary choices to listen to a tube amplifier, a solid state amplifier, and a DAC source. These have been my choices in the blind. And now with the Moon available as a potential discriminator of other products, I ask how good is it at doing this task? In using my ears, I also did something, which may seem troubling or illogical - I did not set the volume the same.
I started at a volume too high for normal listening, and slowly lowered the volume until I could barely hear the background sounds. This represents how I would normally set the volume for a typical listening session. The song I used to test is an excerpt from the Piano Trio No. 4 in D Major, Op. 70, No. 1 "Ghost", II. Largo assai ed espressivo, from the soundtrack of the film Immortal Beloved. Pamela Frank is on violin. Yo-Yo Ma is on cello. Emanuel Ax is on piano. The violin and cello do a sort of dance in the background, with the piano acts as a foreground focal point. I adjusted according to my ability to hear the string instruments. And I did so over the course of several hours, pausing an hour or so between each setting. Thus I was blind to how each previous amplifier was adjusted. Did I discern something from the roughly two minutes of introduction? Absolutely, yes. Though there is no change I can make to a solid state amplifier, I found my own to be quite sublime. I could turn up the volume without discomfort, but the volume I used was interestingly the lowest of the three. It has the most clarity such that even at the lowest decibel output, the sounds are smooth and easily heard. The strings do not disappear off into the blackness of the background, but continue to play. This was a satisfactory finding! I had a somewhat opposite finding for the tube. I like the tube, but it requires a higher volume to construct the same level of musical detail. Perhaps it is time to change a tube in this amplifier, or seek other modifications? And after these changes are made, the Moon could again be useful to compare against the sound of the improvements. In short, the Moon provided a good baseline point from which to measure the sonic quality or lack thereof in my existing amplifier equipment. This is what I sought with this listening test - nothing more. Moving on.
Next I chose to listen to my DAC source. This part saddened me a little, in that I very much like the timbre and flow of my DAC. However I immediately noticed more detail retrieval via the DAC built-in the Moon. And those details, while not entirely accurate in the Moon, were also not harsh as some detail-oriented DACs can be. Many products employ a showroom look-at-me tactic of sounding different to sell, but then sound strident over a longer listening session. I played the same song from the test above, and easily heard the details of both the string and piano instruments, simply clearer via the Moon than via my DAC (grumble grumble - costing around the same as the entire Moon product). And it was not until I listened to the louder piano section, after the two minutes of intro, that I could clearly discern that the details from the Moon DAC were less accurate. Less accurate in that the piano keys were glassy and sounded less like a real piano through Moon’s internal DAC - I play piano so having this sound correct is quite important to me. In a second DAC comparison to my Ayre Codex, the Moon finally lost both subjective contests regarding accuracy and detail retrieval. In summary, the Moon provided a better understanding of the limitations of my daily DAC and as such I may someday consider a replacement for it. Yet, in keeping with the review, this is what I sought via the Moon. It was again successful as a hearing aid, as a baseline for comparison.
At this point, I was starting to develop trust in the neutrality of the Moon. For grins, I decided to also compare the balanced output direct from the Ayre Codex against the single-ended output from the Codex. I did this by using the single-ended RCA output from the Ayre through the Moon. This is the first time I have had an amplifier neutral enough where I felt this test was worthwhile. With volume set equal, I did not hear the same amount of air and breath via the unbalanced output from the Ayre DAC. I’ve read this was true, but could now confirm. I include this test here to point out the truly neutral nature of the amplifier in the Moon and that I found it trustworthy enough to conduct such a listening experiment.
The last bit of testing I did was using my three headphones, which I planned from the introduction to this review. I started with the HE-1000. And this time I did balance each amplifier to an identical volume, if slightly higher than my normal listening volume. The disc I used was a best of compilation album of music by Peter Gabriel titled Shaking the Tree. I listened to the first track, Solsbury Hill, to set my volume for each amplifier. For HE-1000, the track I chose was Mercy Street. It has an amazing baseline, as does much of the artist’s music. It starts with a pulsing bass sound in the right channel, which is slowly joined by the company of higher frequency electronic sounds. I first started with the Moon. I had not heard this song in some time, before any of my recent headphone exploration and DAC/AMP purchases. The sonic information passing through the Moon was mesmerizing. Moving next to my solid state, the sound steps back just a hair, but fills in the space with more depth and dynamics. I never felt the Moon was doing anything wrong, just amplifying the music differently. While everything was coherent on the Moon, I could just about get lost in the music from my solid state, no longer caring about instrument location and separation, just floating in the sound. The sound stayed in front of my head via the Moon, never losing or causing me to want to lose focus on any particular sound. The tube was a different experience. I did not feel it was wrong either, but simply focussed on a different frequency spectrum. I did not enjoy its sound as much as I did on either the Moon or solid state.
I moved to my next headphone, the HD800S and the next track selection, Don’t Give Up. I am more personally familiar with this song, having heard it many times in use at a High School retreat. However, the sheer volume of stage and emotion conveyed in Peter Gabriel’s voice was stunning. I started this comparison using my solid state. Then I moved to the Moon. While the stage again became flatter, I did not feel that any part of the frequency was being over emphasized. The sound remained evenly distributed and true. Moving last to my tube, I heard less of a change in frequency response, and more of an immersion, head first, into the music. It was like I had leaned in to get a closer peek at the musicians on the stage. Again though, the Moon seemed capable of playing the music through my headphones, and also seemed of the three to be the most balanced.
The last headphone to test was the PS1000e, using the track Zaar. It is a rolling, tumultuous series of sounds, many of which are played without reference to any form or rhythm. I again set my volumes against the first track, and started listening with the tube moving next to the Moon. First, the bass became stronger. There is a drum that was particularly more percussive on the Moon. And the higher frequency instruments became less present, in a good way. Last, moving from the Moon to my solid state, everything took a step back. Only this time the sound did not fill in with dynamic volume, as it had with the HE-1000. The dynamics on the Moon and my solid state were about on par through the PS1000e. This may be that I am driving my Grado at the near bottom of the volume of my solid state, in fact just above the point of left/right channel imbalance. The Moon had no low volume imbalance issue that I noticed via the Grado headphones.
Listening
I realized at this point of the review that some people may not choose to use the Moon strictly as a tool, as I have done above. So this section describes just listening to the Moon, via USB through its internal DAC. This section is more of a relaxed listening exercise and sound characteristic summary. When I was using the Moon for a few moments of focussed listening, it was certainly revealing of a lot of things to me. But would I choose to use it for day-in-day-out listening. I started with my AKG K702 headphones, which have a slight added treble edge, and can become tiresome on systems that have unequal frequency response. I have already established a trust between these headphones and my Chord Mojo. Both headphone and DAC/AMP are what I feel to be dry, but the sheer volume of information, without fatigue, is what I heard and quite enjoyed with the Mojo. I wished to hear something similar with the Moon.
I have a playlist composed almost entirely of Radiohead songs from the albums - Amnesiac, In Rainbows, Hail to the Thief, and Kid A. I particularly like the track Everything in its Right Place from Kid A. But after that song, the three tracks I use from In Rainbows can become tiresome. Faust Arp uses acoustic guitar, with focus on the higher pitch notes. It also uses what sounds like violin, but may be a synthesizer - regardless it adds to the treble energy of the song. Reckoner has two cymbals ringing out a percussive, repeated echo. Videotape has a repeated high piano note. But I listened to the entire set on the Moon without any fatigue issue. I next picked a couple of tracks to replay on the Mojo. The Mojo is still one step cleaner, but takes a step back in terms of detail retrieval - particularly regarding the ability to localize musical events, the start and stop of sounds. The distance to each source was a little more obscured on the Mojo. Interesting though, the Mojo had a definite wider stage. But in short summary, those same attributes that kept me attentive to the music via the Moon were now hurting its performance as a piece of everyday listening equipment. Overall I did prefer listening to the AKG through the Mojo, versus the Moon. I’m not sure what this means, but I went back to the HD650 headphones that I first started with, now seeking to hear a few more styles of music.
The Joshua Tree
Where the Streets Have No Name
I was clearly able to hear and almost touch each instrument, particularly the axes (two distinct tracks of guitar), which hovered out in space. When the music slows, you can hear the exact moment the studio engineer decides to turn up the volume on the synth bassline.
I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For
Again each musical note is unique, presented and held within its own individual space, hanging out as if each artist has a solo part. Everything is on the same stage, but the sounds do not overlap. I might have to later listen to that track from Phantom of the Opera, Prima Donna, where there are what seem to be a dozen different singers, often each with their own tune. I would imagine it well-suited to the Moon strengths.
With or Without You
This is truly a treat. I was able to hear the small, subtle tricks used by the studio engineers. Generally when played back on the average system, or even on my tubed headphone system, I can hear the overall sound. But then via the Moon and HD650 headphones, not the most revealing of headphones, I could clearly pick out how the sound moves physically around the stage. I’ve never noticed the odd, deliberate placement of each sound. I wrote in my notes - I am starting to understand the charm of this album.
Who’s Next
The next album did not allow the Moon to highlight hidden subtleties of execution by a studio engineer. The Joshua Tree was made in 1986 and took an entire year to record, while the Who album was made 15 years prior in 1971, and took only 3 months to record. But the album does highlight things I enjoyed, as well as weaknesses of the Moon, relative to competing products.
Baba O’Reilly
Repeating myself, I would assume the studio engineer of 1971 would not have as many tools at his disposal relative to modern sound technique. There is an obviousness that anyone can hear in how the keyboard is panned around, at the introduction and throughout the song. But I quickly got into the head bobbing mode once the drums started to thump and ring. And if you understand how things work with regards to music playback, this is a good thing!
Behind Blue Eyes
I particularly enjoyed the multiple vocal parts of of this song. It is often where the music becomes more complex that I begin to enjoy the benefits of the Moon. It does not break apart as music can do on poorer implementations. And it surprises me in places where this fidelity allows me to hear deeper into the music, even on songs I have heard multiple times. The distinct nature of each voice on the lyric “behind blue eyes” is one of those focus points.
Won’t Get Fooled Again
Here though, I wish the drumming sound had a little more forward presence. It is still there, and audible, but I would just wish to hear it a little more clearly. On other setups, I would describe this more as the drum being part of the band. The percussion drives or allows the other instruments to peak and sway in rhythm to the beat. This gets lost by the separation between it and the bass and guitar sounds.
Remain in the Light
Purple Rain
Off the Wall
Most of what is recorded on these three albums is what I would call the weakness of the Moon. First, what is PRAT? I would never suggest that there is a magical property, such that when the perfect DAC, and perfect amplifier, and perfect headphone are paired, that PRAT suddenly appears. It is more that some implementations allow one to hear the transients more clearly. I hear the start and stop of a long sound via the Moon. But I do not hear the rat-a-tat-tat speedy stuff as clearly. Second thing is the single vocal or the single instrument - I have simply heard better sound from competing products.
When I was listening to the Talking Heads album Remain in the Light on my Hugo, I heard more of the amazement of the contrasting rhythms than I currently hear via the Moon. The same same happened on most songs from the album Purple Rain - understanding this album is highly dependent on hearing the tight electronic and instrumental rhythms. Getting these rhythms or transients perfectly accurate is what, to my ears, the Chord products do well, and the Moon does not compete at this same level via the internal DAC. Then in hearing how the engineer creates the dialog between Wendy and Lisa at the beginning of Computer Blue, the Moon is best to hear this studio trick. While back on the Chord, I was simply immersed in the sound. Last points, I would have preferred the more clear reference to the guitar heard at the beginning of Purple Rain via the Hugo than I heard on the Moon. And I would have preferred to peer a little more deeply into the emotional vocals of Michael Jackson in the song She’s Out of My Life as heard via the Chord, than to hear the localization of electric piano accompaniment. Some of the true feeling of this recording is lost via the Moon.
Aja
Deacon Blues
I think Steely Dan is the ultimate musical group to play on the Moon. Hearing every instrument makes their genius seem that much more so. It would be impossible to explain Deacon Blues to someone who has not heard it. But the entire song is simply there for the taking via the Moon. Listening to their sound is a treat!
Brothers in Arms
Your Latest Trick
Why Worry
Ride Across the River
The Man’s Too Strong
Brother’s in Arms
It is hard to summarize this album and how is it presented on the Moon in a single, simple phrase. I’ve heard better instrument detail from other DACs than heard via the Moon in the song Your Latest Trick. But then on the next track, Why Worry, the Moon just excels. When there are multiple instruments playing in symphony, and you want to focus on the smallest details that sometimes get lost in the background, you can. In this review, I feel perhaps at times I am being too picky. By the time I got to the third song, I did not feel I was listening to a strength or a weakness. The key thing I heard was not in the actual song. Time spent with this amplifier reminds me of some of the best listening sessions, growing up, in front of Dad’s stereo system, with a turntable and two speakers. It reminds of that ease I had in listening to that collective sound. And when I state I’ve heard better, those DAC implementations all come at a price, most starting around $500 more than the entire cost for the Moon. The Moon is a comparative value. And some things still jump out at me and surprise me in the Moon. And most importantly, I can listen to the Moon for hours, at low volume, with no strain or headphone listening fatigue. That to me is worth more than the slight sonic improvement of some of the harder to find and more costly implementations.
Summary
I admit, when I first clicked the web link to read the literature on the Moon NEO 230HAD and Simaudio products in general, I had a concern:
This singular statement is in almost complete opposite of the intent I described in my introduction. I had basic expectations for this device, while their mission statement is the hyperbole pile I would normally try my best to avoid. But immediately after placing the headphones over my ears, I heard a truth of possibility to both tasks - their hyperbolic mission statement, and my personal task. Without getting into the kinds of flattery that induce nausea, I’ll say simply there was a clarity and obviousness to the music that was uncharacteristic of many platforms I had heard before. And this was particularly true of single-box platforms.
Does the Simaudio Moon NEO 230HAD have what I wanted? Absolutely - yes. It also has limits. Simply, there is space in the market for personal electronics where some other products are likely to be better, or worse, or of the same quality as the Moon. When listening to a single instrument, or a less complex cluster of just a few instruments, the DAC in the Moon does not present the best possible perspective. There are DACs, costing more than the Moon, which present better detail or timbre. When using the best possible headphones, there are amplifiers, also costing more than or around the same price as the Moon, which are capable of blacker, deeper background, and a fuller soundstage. The Moon however does correctly keep the sound clear, and just a little ahead of the listener, to maintain ease of focus on positional and depth cues of instruments and vocals.
But note my repeated phrasing - at or above the cost of the Moon. Also consider I am comparing the cost of just a DAC against the entire cost of the Moon. Or I am comparing the cost of just an amplifier against the cost of the entire Moon. To my ears, I have heard its equal or better only in a single regard, never besting it in all characteristics.
What do you have here, in the Simaudio Moon NEO 230HAD? A clear view into the motion vector, which is music? Maybe not - the wellness part is too likely a stretch, but I have been reminded of a time of wellness in youth - a simpler era of just a turntable, integrated amplifier, and two separate speakers. I have not heard any product better produce this essence of sound at lower cost - I have certainly heard worse at higher cost. And when listening to instrumentation that is diverse or complex, the Moon does an excellent job at separation and enunciation of each individual sound, its start and stop in time if perhaps not its pitch and rhythm, and its location in space if perhaps not a perfectly matched timbre. It has a complete set of inputs and outputs, allowing for multiple use cases, or comparison against other amplifiers, and other DACs. It is also great for just kicking back, relaxing and letting some music play. And most importantly it plays many headphones quite well. It is a compact, capable, and attractive box. I highly encourage you to give it a try. I plan to do just that for a long, long time.
Reference Equipment:
Ayre Codex, Chord Hugo, Chord Mojo, Grace Design m9xx, UpTone Audio USB REGEN
Reference Headphones:
AKG K702, Grado PS1000e, HiFiMan HE1000, Sennheiser HD650, Sennheiser HD800S
Why am I here? Am I seeking an endgame all-in-one audio device? Am I seeking an amplifier for every conceivable, non-electrostatic headphone? Am I seeking a sound that will draw me in, wisp me away on a magic carpet ride of sonic bliss, while enveloping my auditory senses in a cloud of ecstasy? The short answer to these questions is no. And please, just a moment of your time for an explanation below.
I am an audiophile - there, I said it. I admit it. I am enthusiastic beyond the norm regarding audio playback - with particular regard to reproduction of audio that has been stored in a digital medium. And I have been interested in headphones since the early 2000s, when a co-worker, owning the Sennheiser HD600, brought these to work and said, have a listen. Helplessly Hoping was the song - I reflect on it today, and it seems an apt start. Though I feel hopeful and optimistic as I enter the Renaissance period of my audio journey, it is after many years of what I term the Dark Ages, the time between 2003 and 2014. These years were when portable MP3 and multi-channel DVD became dominant technologies, both slowing the growth of well-recorded and well-produced stereo music and accelerating the expense of consumer products with technology suitable to listen to good recordings. During those years, I listened only to expensive players and a small collection of DVD-Audio and SACD discs, having read in a magazine it was the correct way. And I had one solid state amplifier. What choice did I have as a headphone enthusiast in 2003? What choice did I need? On paper, my amplifier was overkill, being able to drive simultaneous two pair of HD650 headphones, to ear bleeding volume, when set to the lowest of its three gains. Then in December of 2014, I chanced at the purchase of a Schiit Fulla and my first audition of what modern high fidelity could be. I had downgraded from a setup with an MSRP of $2700 to a USB dongle costing only $79, yet I was at that moment closer to my ideal sound than I’d been in the 10+ years of prior pursuit.
Am I in pursuit of endgame sound? Absolutely not, and an immediate rush towards endgame may lead one to an invitation, an extended stay at a nice place, where you’ll get plenty of rest, relaxation, and hourly observation. I fear there are too many styles of music and variations or interpretations of what defines a musically accurate audio system to call a single setup the end. And more importantly, there are too many moods. I heard a speech at a recent audio event in Atlanta, where a prominent member of our society spoke on a topic, with a simple hook or point of audience understanding - the brain is the most critical component of the audio chain. The speaker was clever and I am not, so I’ll try to explain via self-reference. There are times when I have heard a sound closer to endgame - this often while watching a YouTube video with my headphones plugged into the speaker jack of a standard desktop computer. Does that mean I should sell my solid state amplifier, tube amplifier, and DAC - downgrade my collection of audio hardware to just a PC and stream MP3 across the Internet? The answer is no. There is definite truth to the adaptability of the brain and how it interprets audio - there is also truth that better audio playback equipment exists, and that it can aid the listening experience. I am not expecting the Moon to be endgame, if such a thing can exist. But I do believe the audiophile pursuit is a noble venture. And this is the primary reason I have interest in the Moon.
The first and most variable piece of audio gear we should evaluate in any quest for better audio reproduction is the transducer. However headphones can be a tricky challenge to playback gear due to their diversity - the load imparted by the transducer on the amplifier can vary dramatically based on the design of the headphone. Immediately, I remove the bookends of the transducer world, the HE-6 and IEMs, from my selection. I used an IEM during my dark years, but find these too cumbersome to insert, take out, and keep in place for just the right sound. I listen to music only in a quiet room, so an open headphone design will do. I also have not joined the ranks of the HE-6 power starved. The HE-1000 is my headphone requiring the most current to play properly. And the Moon absolutely must play this headphone properly. I also expect a competent amplifier such as the Moon to play properly with my least current hungry headphone, a Grado PS1000e. And a competent amplifier must play properly with a voltage hungry headphone, like the HD800S. These three headphones I will test. Though in no uncertain terms, if an amplifier cannot adequately play any of these three, I will not buy. My expectation is that I can use the Moon to properly assess other headphones that are new to me. And per general amplifier use, I want the ability to choose the headphone that best suits my mood for listening today.
Last, I do not want to or expect to be transported away on a cloud of hyperbole. I am looking for a competent tool, which can be used to assess the competency of other parts of the audio chain, those other parts being headphones, sources, and to some extent other amplifiers. I expect the Moon to play, and get out of the way of any source I use. I do not want to be swooned by its amplifier, adding its own coloration to the sound between my headphone and my source. I want to be able to discern the colors of other amplifiers apart from the neutrality of the Moon. I expect the Moon also to play and announce clearly to the listener the differences between sources so these are easily noted. Overall, I expect a competent, honest sound.
Package
This is the part where I tell you the box is yay high and oh so this and that wide - these are details you can find online. I will tell you that the Moon fit everywhere I went to place it. I had no issue on a small table in my family room, adjacent my laptop. I also had no issue on the smallish remainder of a stand, next to my fixed stack of DAC and two amplifiers. The best amplifier that fit on this shelf was a Cavalli Audio Liquid Carbon. Items that have fit well in the family room space are the JDS Labs The Element, Grace Design m9xx, and a Schiit stack consisting of an Asgard on top of a Bifrost. Things which have not fit so well in these spaces are Audio-GD DAC-19 and Ayre QB-9. There is one dimension that might explain - the width of the Moon is 7 inches - the two products I had trouble fitting were 8.5 and 9.5 inches, which is slightly above half-width of the typical consumer electronics product. The family room is the first space I use for almost all new audio products, and the shelf is my permanent space. Thus having the Moon fit here made it feel immediately welcome.
An open sitting area is another place I like to listen, where appearance is more important to me than size. Anything I would use here with regularity must look good without a large mess of wires connected all around. The Moon requires only a USB and a power cable in back and a headphone plugged in front. Its setup is simple and clean. I find the black box visually appealing too, recalling the appearance of my classic Denon disc players. The front is brushed metal. There is a nice texture to the metal material on the top and sides. The lightly abrasive finish gives the appearance of a product well-built and capable of withstanding the occasional scratch or rub without gouging. I assume there were a few people who used the unit prior to my audition, and it still looked clean and new.
About the only negative is a slight flexing at the very bottom, on each side of the case. This I noticed while moving or unpacking the Moon. Once seated, everything seen and touched is firm. The four rubber feet keep the Moon from sliding across the table. Never once did I feel the need to hold the Moon in place as I plugged in new headphones. When I did venture around back to plug in a pair of RCA cables, these connections too felt sturdy.
The front layout is simple - having only power on/off and input select buttons, both of which feel nice to the touch. A single blue LED above the power button is lit while the unit is on. The front-facing volume knob rotates cleanly. I found the screw hole for the knob, opposite the visual dot on the front, helpful to locate the volume position when using the Moon in a dark room. A friend too noticed that the volume indicator dot is a physical indentation, so it could be used as a point of reference for volume.
The only external feature missing is a readout for volume, which the 430HAD has. This aids in A/B comparisons. Once a volume is adjusted for and measured as a reference point, recovery to that same volume is easier with a digital readout. And I only make note of this because some of the competing products do include this feature, such as the Grace Design m9xx and Ayre Codex. I had no issues adjusting the volume to a comfortable desired level for just listening.
Features
Those needing balanced inputs and outputs should look to its bigger brother the NEO 430HAD. Otherwise every key feature for unbalanced audio is standard in the NEO 230HAD. It has two sets of analog inputs - RCA on the back and a ⅛” TRS phono on the front. It has two sets of RCA analog outputs on the back - a static line-level output and a variable pre-amplifier output. It has a competent DAC inside - think of the DAC as a baseline source, comparable to other sources you may wish to measure. The DAC accepts external digital input from optical, coax (2 inputs), and USB. Via USB, the sound is clean, which is admirable from my sub-standard USB source, an old laptop. I used my Regen for ultimate listening evaluation, but one need not use this for day-to-day listening or when using a better source.
The user toggles through the inputs via a single button on the front. There are two columns of red LED - the left column indicates the input source chosen and the right column indicates the bit rate of the audio fed from an external source into the DAC. Rather than account for every possible rate, there are just a few LED. There are two base rate LED to indicate 44.1 and 48 kHz. There are two multiplier LED to indicate 2x and 4x. The only complication is for playback of 384kHz, which is shown by the 48 kHz base rate and both the 2x and 4x multipliers. There is also a DSD base rate. This too can be combined with the 2x or 4x multiplier when engaged to play higher sample rate data.
The DAC processes PCM. More important, to my ears, I found no issue with playback of basic 16-bit, 44.1kHz resolution audio, the standard format of Red Book, and what I majority use in my daily listening and as my primary track selection for testing done in this review. Some DACs will sound their best for playback of higher resolution audio. The Moon was competent at all audio rates. Though I do not use DSD, I did test to verify the NEO 230HAD will play DSD tracks sampled at 1x, 2x, and 4x data rates through USB. I had a minor issue with DSD at 4x. Instead of displaying the LED for DSD and 4x, it showed the LED for 44.1kHz and both the 2x and 4x, meaning PCM at 352.8kHz. However this was also shown in the playback software display. So I’ll attribute this to an issue in software or the hardware of my computer, and not the Moon. I do note though I did not have this issue with a Chord Mojo, which correctly played DSD at 4x using the same track and same software.
Sound
I connected a USB cable and power cord to the Moon and plugged my HD650 headphones to the front, seeking only at first to verify the box was functional and all sources could play. But as I listened to the sound, I immediately heard something was different - something in the sound was new to me, in a way I was unaccustomed to hearing. It was more different than the typical delta I expect from a new amplifier. So I paused at the question - is this something new a good, or something new a bad? And a second question seemed relevant - how does one go about the measurement of a tool, which itself is meant to measure other products. If I haven’t already, I am certainly about to take a divergent path. First, I’m going to use my ears to measure. And what I will be measuring are products I will not name. To you, these are simply my primary choices to listen to a tube amplifier, a solid state amplifier, and a DAC source. These have been my choices in the blind. And now with the Moon available as a potential discriminator of other products, I ask how good is it at doing this task? In using my ears, I also did something, which may seem troubling or illogical - I did not set the volume the same.
I started at a volume too high for normal listening, and slowly lowered the volume until I could barely hear the background sounds. This represents how I would normally set the volume for a typical listening session. The song I used to test is an excerpt from the Piano Trio No. 4 in D Major, Op. 70, No. 1 "Ghost", II. Largo assai ed espressivo, from the soundtrack of the film Immortal Beloved. Pamela Frank is on violin. Yo-Yo Ma is on cello. Emanuel Ax is on piano. The violin and cello do a sort of dance in the background, with the piano acts as a foreground focal point. I adjusted according to my ability to hear the string instruments. And I did so over the course of several hours, pausing an hour or so between each setting. Thus I was blind to how each previous amplifier was adjusted. Did I discern something from the roughly two minutes of introduction? Absolutely, yes. Though there is no change I can make to a solid state amplifier, I found my own to be quite sublime. I could turn up the volume without discomfort, but the volume I used was interestingly the lowest of the three. It has the most clarity such that even at the lowest decibel output, the sounds are smooth and easily heard. The strings do not disappear off into the blackness of the background, but continue to play. This was a satisfactory finding! I had a somewhat opposite finding for the tube. I like the tube, but it requires a higher volume to construct the same level of musical detail. Perhaps it is time to change a tube in this amplifier, or seek other modifications? And after these changes are made, the Moon could again be useful to compare against the sound of the improvements. In short, the Moon provided a good baseline point from which to measure the sonic quality or lack thereof in my existing amplifier equipment. This is what I sought with this listening test - nothing more. Moving on.
Next I chose to listen to my DAC source. This part saddened me a little, in that I very much like the timbre and flow of my DAC. However I immediately noticed more detail retrieval via the DAC built-in the Moon. And those details, while not entirely accurate in the Moon, were also not harsh as some detail-oriented DACs can be. Many products employ a showroom look-at-me tactic of sounding different to sell, but then sound strident over a longer listening session. I played the same song from the test above, and easily heard the details of both the string and piano instruments, simply clearer via the Moon than via my DAC (grumble grumble - costing around the same as the entire Moon product). And it was not until I listened to the louder piano section, after the two minutes of intro, that I could clearly discern that the details from the Moon DAC were less accurate. Less accurate in that the piano keys were glassy and sounded less like a real piano through Moon’s internal DAC - I play piano so having this sound correct is quite important to me. In a second DAC comparison to my Ayre Codex, the Moon finally lost both subjective contests regarding accuracy and detail retrieval. In summary, the Moon provided a better understanding of the limitations of my daily DAC and as such I may someday consider a replacement for it. Yet, in keeping with the review, this is what I sought via the Moon. It was again successful as a hearing aid, as a baseline for comparison.
At this point, I was starting to develop trust in the neutrality of the Moon. For grins, I decided to also compare the balanced output direct from the Ayre Codex against the single-ended output from the Codex. I did this by using the single-ended RCA output from the Ayre through the Moon. This is the first time I have had an amplifier neutral enough where I felt this test was worthwhile. With volume set equal, I did not hear the same amount of air and breath via the unbalanced output from the Ayre DAC. I’ve read this was true, but could now confirm. I include this test here to point out the truly neutral nature of the amplifier in the Moon and that I found it trustworthy enough to conduct such a listening experiment.
The last bit of testing I did was using my three headphones, which I planned from the introduction to this review. I started with the HE-1000. And this time I did balance each amplifier to an identical volume, if slightly higher than my normal listening volume. The disc I used was a best of compilation album of music by Peter Gabriel titled Shaking the Tree. I listened to the first track, Solsbury Hill, to set my volume for each amplifier. For HE-1000, the track I chose was Mercy Street. It has an amazing baseline, as does much of the artist’s music. It starts with a pulsing bass sound in the right channel, which is slowly joined by the company of higher frequency electronic sounds. I first started with the Moon. I had not heard this song in some time, before any of my recent headphone exploration and DAC/AMP purchases. The sonic information passing through the Moon was mesmerizing. Moving next to my solid state, the sound steps back just a hair, but fills in the space with more depth and dynamics. I never felt the Moon was doing anything wrong, just amplifying the music differently. While everything was coherent on the Moon, I could just about get lost in the music from my solid state, no longer caring about instrument location and separation, just floating in the sound. The sound stayed in front of my head via the Moon, never losing or causing me to want to lose focus on any particular sound. The tube was a different experience. I did not feel it was wrong either, but simply focussed on a different frequency spectrum. I did not enjoy its sound as much as I did on either the Moon or solid state.
I moved to my next headphone, the HD800S and the next track selection, Don’t Give Up. I am more personally familiar with this song, having heard it many times in use at a High School retreat. However, the sheer volume of stage and emotion conveyed in Peter Gabriel’s voice was stunning. I started this comparison using my solid state. Then I moved to the Moon. While the stage again became flatter, I did not feel that any part of the frequency was being over emphasized. The sound remained evenly distributed and true. Moving last to my tube, I heard less of a change in frequency response, and more of an immersion, head first, into the music. It was like I had leaned in to get a closer peek at the musicians on the stage. Again though, the Moon seemed capable of playing the music through my headphones, and also seemed of the three to be the most balanced.
The last headphone to test was the PS1000e, using the track Zaar. It is a rolling, tumultuous series of sounds, many of which are played without reference to any form or rhythm. I again set my volumes against the first track, and started listening with the tube moving next to the Moon. First, the bass became stronger. There is a drum that was particularly more percussive on the Moon. And the higher frequency instruments became less present, in a good way. Last, moving from the Moon to my solid state, everything took a step back. Only this time the sound did not fill in with dynamic volume, as it had with the HE-1000. The dynamics on the Moon and my solid state were about on par through the PS1000e. This may be that I am driving my Grado at the near bottom of the volume of my solid state, in fact just above the point of left/right channel imbalance. The Moon had no low volume imbalance issue that I noticed via the Grado headphones.
Listening
I realized at this point of the review that some people may not choose to use the Moon strictly as a tool, as I have done above. So this section describes just listening to the Moon, via USB through its internal DAC. This section is more of a relaxed listening exercise and sound characteristic summary. When I was using the Moon for a few moments of focussed listening, it was certainly revealing of a lot of things to me. But would I choose to use it for day-in-day-out listening. I started with my AKG K702 headphones, which have a slight added treble edge, and can become tiresome on systems that have unequal frequency response. I have already established a trust between these headphones and my Chord Mojo. Both headphone and DAC/AMP are what I feel to be dry, but the sheer volume of information, without fatigue, is what I heard and quite enjoyed with the Mojo. I wished to hear something similar with the Moon.
I have a playlist composed almost entirely of Radiohead songs from the albums - Amnesiac, In Rainbows, Hail to the Thief, and Kid A. I particularly like the track Everything in its Right Place from Kid A. But after that song, the three tracks I use from In Rainbows can become tiresome. Faust Arp uses acoustic guitar, with focus on the higher pitch notes. It also uses what sounds like violin, but may be a synthesizer - regardless it adds to the treble energy of the song. Reckoner has two cymbals ringing out a percussive, repeated echo. Videotape has a repeated high piano note. But I listened to the entire set on the Moon without any fatigue issue. I next picked a couple of tracks to replay on the Mojo. The Mojo is still one step cleaner, but takes a step back in terms of detail retrieval - particularly regarding the ability to localize musical events, the start and stop of sounds. The distance to each source was a little more obscured on the Mojo. Interesting though, the Mojo had a definite wider stage. But in short summary, those same attributes that kept me attentive to the music via the Moon were now hurting its performance as a piece of everyday listening equipment. Overall I did prefer listening to the AKG through the Mojo, versus the Moon. I’m not sure what this means, but I went back to the HD650 headphones that I first started with, now seeking to hear a few more styles of music.
The Joshua Tree
Where the Streets Have No Name
I was clearly able to hear and almost touch each instrument, particularly the axes (two distinct tracks of guitar), which hovered out in space. When the music slows, you can hear the exact moment the studio engineer decides to turn up the volume on the synth bassline.
I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For
Again each musical note is unique, presented and held within its own individual space, hanging out as if each artist has a solo part. Everything is on the same stage, but the sounds do not overlap. I might have to later listen to that track from Phantom of the Opera, Prima Donna, where there are what seem to be a dozen different singers, often each with their own tune. I would imagine it well-suited to the Moon strengths.
With or Without You
This is truly a treat. I was able to hear the small, subtle tricks used by the studio engineers. Generally when played back on the average system, or even on my tubed headphone system, I can hear the overall sound. But then via the Moon and HD650 headphones, not the most revealing of headphones, I could clearly pick out how the sound moves physically around the stage. I’ve never noticed the odd, deliberate placement of each sound. I wrote in my notes - I am starting to understand the charm of this album.
Who’s Next
The next album did not allow the Moon to highlight hidden subtleties of execution by a studio engineer. The Joshua Tree was made in 1986 and took an entire year to record, while the Who album was made 15 years prior in 1971, and took only 3 months to record. But the album does highlight things I enjoyed, as well as weaknesses of the Moon, relative to competing products.
Baba O’Reilly
Repeating myself, I would assume the studio engineer of 1971 would not have as many tools at his disposal relative to modern sound technique. There is an obviousness that anyone can hear in how the keyboard is panned around, at the introduction and throughout the song. But I quickly got into the head bobbing mode once the drums started to thump and ring. And if you understand how things work with regards to music playback, this is a good thing!
Behind Blue Eyes
I particularly enjoyed the multiple vocal parts of of this song. It is often where the music becomes more complex that I begin to enjoy the benefits of the Moon. It does not break apart as music can do on poorer implementations. And it surprises me in places where this fidelity allows me to hear deeper into the music, even on songs I have heard multiple times. The distinct nature of each voice on the lyric “behind blue eyes” is one of those focus points.
Won’t Get Fooled Again
Here though, I wish the drumming sound had a little more forward presence. It is still there, and audible, but I would just wish to hear it a little more clearly. On other setups, I would describe this more as the drum being part of the band. The percussion drives or allows the other instruments to peak and sway in rhythm to the beat. This gets lost by the separation between it and the bass and guitar sounds.
Remain in the Light
Purple Rain
Off the Wall
Most of what is recorded on these three albums is what I would call the weakness of the Moon. First, what is PRAT? I would never suggest that there is a magical property, such that when the perfect DAC, and perfect amplifier, and perfect headphone are paired, that PRAT suddenly appears. It is more that some implementations allow one to hear the transients more clearly. I hear the start and stop of a long sound via the Moon. But I do not hear the rat-a-tat-tat speedy stuff as clearly. Second thing is the single vocal or the single instrument - I have simply heard better sound from competing products.
When I was listening to the Talking Heads album Remain in the Light on my Hugo, I heard more of the amazement of the contrasting rhythms than I currently hear via the Moon. The same same happened on most songs from the album Purple Rain - understanding this album is highly dependent on hearing the tight electronic and instrumental rhythms. Getting these rhythms or transients perfectly accurate is what, to my ears, the Chord products do well, and the Moon does not compete at this same level via the internal DAC. Then in hearing how the engineer creates the dialog between Wendy and Lisa at the beginning of Computer Blue, the Moon is best to hear this studio trick. While back on the Chord, I was simply immersed in the sound. Last points, I would have preferred the more clear reference to the guitar heard at the beginning of Purple Rain via the Hugo than I heard on the Moon. And I would have preferred to peer a little more deeply into the emotional vocals of Michael Jackson in the song She’s Out of My Life as heard via the Chord, than to hear the localization of electric piano accompaniment. Some of the true feeling of this recording is lost via the Moon.
Aja
Deacon Blues
I think Steely Dan is the ultimate musical group to play on the Moon. Hearing every instrument makes their genius seem that much more so. It would be impossible to explain Deacon Blues to someone who has not heard it. But the entire song is simply there for the taking via the Moon. Listening to their sound is a treat!
Brothers in Arms
Your Latest Trick
Why Worry
Ride Across the River
The Man’s Too Strong
Brother’s in Arms
It is hard to summarize this album and how is it presented on the Moon in a single, simple phrase. I’ve heard better instrument detail from other DACs than heard via the Moon in the song Your Latest Trick. But then on the next track, Why Worry, the Moon just excels. When there are multiple instruments playing in symphony, and you want to focus on the smallest details that sometimes get lost in the background, you can. In this review, I feel perhaps at times I am being too picky. By the time I got to the third song, I did not feel I was listening to a strength or a weakness. The key thing I heard was not in the actual song. Time spent with this amplifier reminds me of some of the best listening sessions, growing up, in front of Dad’s stereo system, with a turntable and two speakers. It reminds of that ease I had in listening to that collective sound. And when I state I’ve heard better, those DAC implementations all come at a price, most starting around $500 more than the entire cost for the Moon. The Moon is a comparative value. And some things still jump out at me and surprise me in the Moon. And most importantly, I can listen to the Moon for hours, at low volume, with no strain or headphone listening fatigue. That to me is worth more than the slight sonic improvement of some of the harder to find and more costly implementations.
Summary
I admit, when I first clicked the web link to read the literature on the Moon NEO 230HAD and Simaudio products in general, I had a concern:
This singular statement is in almost complete opposite of the intent I described in my introduction. I had basic expectations for this device, while their mission statement is the hyperbole pile I would normally try my best to avoid. But immediately after placing the headphones over my ears, I heard a truth of possibility to both tasks - their hyperbolic mission statement, and my personal task. Without getting into the kinds of flattery that induce nausea, I’ll say simply there was a clarity and obviousness to the music that was uncharacteristic of many platforms I had heard before. And this was particularly true of single-box platforms.
Does the Simaudio Moon NEO 230HAD have what I wanted? Absolutely - yes. It also has limits. Simply, there is space in the market for personal electronics where some other products are likely to be better, or worse, or of the same quality as the Moon. When listening to a single instrument, or a less complex cluster of just a few instruments, the DAC in the Moon does not present the best possible perspective. There are DACs, costing more than the Moon, which present better detail or timbre. When using the best possible headphones, there are amplifiers, also costing more than or around the same price as the Moon, which are capable of blacker, deeper background, and a fuller soundstage. The Moon however does correctly keep the sound clear, and just a little ahead of the listener, to maintain ease of focus on positional and depth cues of instruments and vocals.
But note my repeated phrasing - at or above the cost of the Moon. Also consider I am comparing the cost of just a DAC against the entire cost of the Moon. Or I am comparing the cost of just an amplifier against the cost of the entire Moon. To my ears, I have heard its equal or better only in a single regard, never besting it in all characteristics.
What do you have here, in the Simaudio Moon NEO 230HAD? A clear view into the motion vector, which is music? Maybe not - the wellness part is too likely a stretch, but I have been reminded of a time of wellness in youth - a simpler era of just a turntable, integrated amplifier, and two separate speakers. I have not heard any product better produce this essence of sound at lower cost - I have certainly heard worse at higher cost. And when listening to instrumentation that is diverse or complex, the Moon does an excellent job at separation and enunciation of each individual sound, its start and stop in time if perhaps not its pitch and rhythm, and its location in space if perhaps not a perfectly matched timbre. It has a complete set of inputs and outputs, allowing for multiple use cases, or comparison against other amplifiers, and other DACs. It is also great for just kicking back, relaxing and letting some music play. And most importantly it plays many headphones quite well. It is a compact, capable, and attractive box. I highly encourage you to give it a try. I plan to do just that for a long, long time.
Reference Equipment:
Ayre Codex, Chord Hugo, Chord Mojo, Grace Design m9xx, UpTone Audio USB REGEN
Reference Headphones:
AKG K702, Grado PS1000e, HiFiMan HE1000, Sennheiser HD650, Sennheiser HD800S
