I was in the mood for some new toys and just ordered the Topping D90SE, which is the current leader in Amir's list. I'll let you know what it means to compare a perfectly measuring DAC against the DA005. I am myself VERY curious.
Four years after the L.K.S DA004: the Musetec DA005 DAC
- Thread starter JecklinStax
- Start date
You could lower the level to 1.5v by using the digital volume control built-in ess9038.
Not for me. I've used the internal vol control and it fell short against the external pre amp. It's just not good enough.
Unfortunately it seems that the implementation of high-end chips used in the 005 is wrong and the analog stage is too weak for the 2 x ess9038.
Lennym
100+ Head-Fier
I've sent a note to Jinbo advising him of the unfavorable review at Audio Science Review.
I concluded with: If you have any response or comments that you want published you can send them directly to him directly or to me, your US dealer or any other of your customers that you are in contact with.
I concluded with: If you have any response or comments that you want published you can send them directly to him directly or to me, your US dealer or any other of your customers that you are in contact with.
sns109
100+ Head-Fier
So, we must assume, measurements are of malfunctioning 005, measurement are correct and 005 measured completely functional, or measurements and subjective listening tests have virtually no correlation.
At this point, I don't know what to think, I had the Okto Dac 8, LKS 004 and Auralic Vega dacs and 005 in house all within a few weeks of each other, in case of Okto and Vega direct comparison. 005 was superior to all, and I know at least Okto measured superior to 005. And, I've now had 005 in for well over two years, there has been a number of system upgrades in this time and 005 has clearly exposed each and every change.
I've been seriously contemplating very high end dac purchase in recent weeks, if only to measure (subjective listening) 005 against the best. I can't find anything to complain about with 005 sound quality, which means I'm not hearing any sins of commission. I want to listen for any sins of omission. My dac of choice at this very moment would be Playback Designs MPD-6, $15k FPGA dac.
I'd be curious as to how this dac, or any other of the highest end dac measure at ASR. If 005 measured not broken, really calls into question subjective vs objective testing, if that 005 not broken the divide has greatly increased. I do know my preferred SET amps would measure pretty poorly, high even order distortion products for one, and yet I much prefer to most, if not all amps measured over there. Still, it is concerning 005 measures so poorly, I'd think those set of measurements would negatively effect sound quality.
At this point, I don't know what to think, I had the Okto Dac 8, LKS 004 and Auralic Vega dacs and 005 in house all within a few weeks of each other, in case of Okto and Vega direct comparison. 005 was superior to all, and I know at least Okto measured superior to 005. And, I've now had 005 in for well over two years, there has been a number of system upgrades in this time and 005 has clearly exposed each and every change.
I've been seriously contemplating very high end dac purchase in recent weeks, if only to measure (subjective listening) 005 against the best. I can't find anything to complain about with 005 sound quality, which means I'm not hearing any sins of commission. I want to listen for any sins of omission. My dac of choice at this very moment would be Playback Designs MPD-6, $15k FPGA dac.
I'd be curious as to how this dac, or any other of the highest end dac measure at ASR. If 005 measured not broken, really calls into question subjective vs objective testing, if that 005 not broken the divide has greatly increased. I do know my preferred SET amps would measure pretty poorly, high even order distortion products for one, and yet I much prefer to most, if not all amps measured over there. Still, it is concerning 005 measures so poorly, I'd think those set of measurements would negatively effect sound quality.
Lennym
100+ Head-Fier
Though it's late at night in China, Jinbo just responded to my email:
Hi Mel.
Thank you so much for sharing. I read this post carefully.
I can explain the content of the subject test through our design experience.
It took me more than three years to design DA005. Roughly estimated, I had done nearly ten different designs. In the test, I found that if all the parameters were set according to the "best" of the instrument test, the final sound was not what I wanted.
Our development process also confirmed the widely debated idea that hiFI systems are generally not sound good or bad through test instruments. Any experienced electronics engineer can do it well, and it doesn't require much effort or musical awareness. I don't really want to argue too much about that. The customers who have heard about our products have the best say.
As an experienced enthusiast, you should be able to understand this.
BR
Jinbo
I take this to mean that he has no argument with amirm's test results and that he goes by listening alone. It used to be said that if it sounds good and measures poorly, you are not measuring the right things. But I don't think this is good enough today in a marketing sense. Moreover, Jinbo publishes technical specifications which should be repeatable with the correct testing procedures, so I am disappointed about that.
Looking for advice as to how or if to present this to a wider public through the Audiogon thread where I am melm, OP.
Hi Mel.
Thank you so much for sharing. I read this post carefully.
I can explain the content of the subject test through our design experience.
It took me more than three years to design DA005. Roughly estimated, I had done nearly ten different designs. In the test, I found that if all the parameters were set according to the "best" of the instrument test, the final sound was not what I wanted.
Our development process also confirmed the widely debated idea that hiFI systems are generally not sound good or bad through test instruments. Any experienced electronics engineer can do it well, and it doesn't require much effort or musical awareness. I don't really want to argue too much about that. The customers who have heard about our products have the best say.
As an experienced enthusiast, you should be able to understand this.
BR
Jinbo
I take this to mean that he has no argument with amirm's test results and that he goes by listening alone. It used to be said that if it sounds good and measures poorly, you are not measuring the right things. But I don't think this is good enough today in a marketing sense. Moreover, Jinbo publishes technical specifications which should be repeatable with the correct testing procedures, so I am disappointed about that.
Looking for advice as to how or if to present this to a wider public through the Audiogon thread where I am melm, OP.
Last edited:
Amirm dismissing something based on a figure from his test bench where those figures HAVE NEVER been corroborated as correlating with blinded participants scoring of the sound is, frankly, silly and unhelpful. two DACs with different SINEAD have never been shown that they will follow the same scoring paradigm with MUSIC. So tech specs should never be the final arbiter, the ear should be.
The most useful thing I got out of his measurements where that the DAC has been optimised to give best SNR at between 1v to 2v which is surely where most of us will use it.
Based on the replies on audiosciencereview already I don't think the opportunity for open minded debate exists. For me this DAC has bested 5 other DACS I evaluated in my system at up to double it's price level. I am going to eval a Lampizator Baltic 3 hopefully in June. It might sound better I guess but it is 2.4 times the cost - we will see.
I would tell anyone who likes the sound of this DAC to not worry about a jitter spike at 12K or any other such nonsense (what the distortion profile is like at >-100dB!), the ear and the emotional engagement are what matter (to me at least). regards to all.
The most useful thing I got out of his measurements where that the DAC has been optimised to give best SNR at between 1v to 2v which is surely where most of us will use it.
Based on the replies on audiosciencereview already I don't think the opportunity for open minded debate exists. For me this DAC has bested 5 other DACS I evaluated in my system at up to double it's price level. I am going to eval a Lampizator Baltic 3 hopefully in June. It might sound better I guess but it is 2.4 times the cost - we will see.
I would tell anyone who likes the sound of this DAC to not worry about a jitter spike at 12K or any other such nonsense (what the distortion profile is like at >-100dB!), the ear and the emotional engagement are what matter (to me at least). regards to all.
I like my DAC and I don't have to defend it. It was my choice and I stand with it. On the other hand, high jitter is nothing that can contribute to good sound. There is no excuse, it is inferior design in the digital domain. When Jinbo says that it took him 3y to make the DAC sound like *he wanted* (his words), that says a lot. It's his idea of good sound. Fair enough, it does resonate with many of us, including myself. Let's not try to argue against objective quality measures, though. We can't win this argument and it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
sns109
100+ Head-Fier
Nothing has changed, the dac will have exact same sound it had previous to review, the only difference is those purchasing by measurements will never hear. This only further divides the objectivists and subjectivists. I do wonder if any present owners will now begin to hear anomalies.
Lennym
100+ Head-Fier
I'm confident that those with the Musetec and those having the opportunity to audition it understand its quality and will remain interested. I do think public interest in the Musetec will wane though. Resale will be affected. IMO a rebound will happen only if the DAC is reviewed positively by a respected reviewer. Reviewers of audiophile electronics in the US do not, with one exception, accompany their reviews with measurements. A detailed positive review of its sound quality could really illuminate the sound vs. measurements controversy for the broader community.
After a day of reflection I'm becoming more and more appreciative of the taciturn Jinbo who says, effectively:
Any old competent engineer can design a DAC that tests well.
I'm interested in music, so what I do is design to sound good. Period. Measurements notwithstanding. They just fall out, and are what they are.
After a day of reflection I'm becoming more and more appreciative of the taciturn Jinbo who says, effectively:
Any old competent engineer can design a DAC that tests well.
I'm interested in music, so what I do is design to sound good. Period. Measurements notwithstanding. They just fall out, and are what they are.
Well, resale is pretty much screwed. Adds up to the non existing resonance in the magazines. It's a keeper now 
Amir was too lazy to put the battery in the remote. That was kind of ridiculous. Four screws...We missed the opportunity to see the difference between the PLL modes. Mode 1 sounds quite distinct to the others. I guess its jitter spectrum is not the same.
The saturating output stage however is kind of a letdown. It should work optimally at the specified voltage level, not below. Overall I think the majority of the distortions comes from the discrete I/U and output stage. The output amplifier and buffer has no feedback (I think). Without it the distortion values cannot compete against integrated op amps.
Amir was too lazy to put the battery in the remote. That was kind of ridiculous. Four screws...We missed the opportunity to see the difference between the PLL modes. Mode 1 sounds quite distinct to the others. I guess its jitter spectrum is not the same.
The saturating output stage however is kind of a letdown. It should work optimally at the specified voltage level, not below. Overall I think the majority of the distortions comes from the discrete I/U and output stage. The output amplifier and buffer has no feedback (I think). Without it the distortion values cannot compete against integrated op amps.
sns109
100+ Head-Fier
You also have to keep in mind the ESS chip "hump" or mid level output distortion rise. I do hear the above and the "hump" as slight artifacts in 005 sound. I alluded to this in a post on Audiogon thread when I mentioned added refinement as necessary and expected in any +$10K dac I'd purchase. Over the two years plus I've owned 005 I've made a number of system upgrades which required burn in time and period of listening post burn in. I'm now coming to the end phase of all possible upgrades, along with their burn in time and post listening analysis. Over time I've begun to hear certain artifacts that deviate from my reference for preferred sound qualities. these being natural timbre I hear from live non-amplified instruments and played back on top flight vinyl systems. I mostly hear this on massed violins, IME the single most difficult for digital to get right. I hear just this bit of stridency, not to the level of glare lesser dacs give off. I think the 005 gets this more right than many dacs I've heard over the years, and I'd say its definitely recording dependent, but I'd still say the 005 leaves artifacts of it's own here. I suspect the discreet I/U and output stage design here both gives and takes, certainly gives in the sense of high resolving and relative (for ESS chip) natural sound, however, these abilities also take in that they expose the artifacts I speak of.Well, resale is pretty much screwed. Adds up to the non existing resonance in the magazines. It's a keeper now
Amir was too lazy to put the battery in the remote. That was kind of ridiculous. Four screws...We missed the opportunity to see the difference between the PLL modes. Mode 1 sounds quite distinct to the others. I guess its jitter spectrum is not the same.
The saturating output stage however is kind of a letdown. It should work optimally at the specified voltage level, not below. Overall I think the majority of the distortions comes from the discrete I/U and output stage. The output amplifier and buffer has no feedback (I think). Without it the distortion values cannot compete against integrated op amps.
Keep in mind, I still maintain this dac as top flight, especially at the price, and others impressions are as valid as ever. But in the total realm of dacs at all price points you can't expect this dac to be 'king of the mountain'. By the end of year I should better know where to place this dac in context, as I fully intend to audition/purchase one of the high end FPGA dacs. I believe FPGA dacs are where the future lies in digital.
Lennym
100+ Head-Fier
Yes, very recording dependent, and to some extent dependent on peripheral hardware, even USB cable. No doubt you have a more resolving system than do I, but sometimes string sections sound great, other times no so much. I have compared many of the same recordings on vinyl and digital. Often I cannot discern a difference, but for vinyl artifacts.
Lennym
100+ Head-Fier
A more fleshed out response from Jinbo that I received this morning:
I wrote some words. I think it's necessary to tell you my opinion.
The development of DA005 has undergone a lot of testing and listening. We focus more on listening tests. In my first few years in the field of audio product development, I also focused on instrument testing to study various data results of products through testing. However, it is finally found that we cannot express the actual listening feeling of audio equipment through the limited test method of audio analyzer. For example, in the process of development, it is very easy to see an interesting phenomenon that capacitors, resistors, wires and even solder of different brands or series will directly change the sound, but when these parts are changed, we can't check the change of test data through the analyzer. Once I made two DACs and did a blind listening test with my friends to verify some conclusions. I used exactly the same circuit board, resistor, capacitor, IC, etc. in short, the two DACs are exactly the same except for the different solder. As a result, the two DACs showed completely different sound styles when replaying music, and even there was a gap in sound quality, such as their dynamic expression of sound, transparency and so on. The two DACs are made of exactly the same materials, so we can't distinguish them by audio analyzer.
I know there is an argument that wire and fuse are metaphysics, and "burn-in" is also metaphysics.
Before I know enough about it, I also agree that these are metaphysics. But it is likely that there are some "data" that we cannot detect through the existing analyzer.
I have seriously thought about why the "burn-in" will bring obvious sound changes. Even the newly welded equipment after standing for a few days without electricity will have a more natural listening feeling than the newly welded equipment. The basic components of audio equipment - resistor, capacitor, inductor, solder, IC, etc. are composed of basic metal atoms and compound molecules. When the machine is powered on, these parts can be activated, electrons and ions migrate continuously, and even the materials inside the component vibrate due to the change of current frequency. This process will produce some changes inside the component. But it may not be a favorable change, so we need to try different components repeatedly. The goal is to find those components that are just right for the change after full activation. For example, it usually takes at least 5-7 days to determine whether a type of capacitor is suitable. If there is not enough time, the sound will be different every day.
Because of the existence of the above situation, it will directly lead to a problem, that is, the time and energy spent by listening and adjustment is far greater than the instrument test. For this reason, we usually need at least three years to update a product. Carefully update products, that is why we have many loyal customers.
I usually think that if there is a analyzer which can effectively detect these changes, the process of developing products will be much easier and faster.
I respect ASR's test. They have excellent test equipment, even have some authority. but I don't think this test conclusion has a direct relationship with the sound performance of the product. However, I will seek a high-performance testing instrument to review the ASR test. If my customers are dissatisfied with the instrument test performance of the product, we will update the design to the customers who need it in the next few months to make the updated product have good enough instrument test performance. We will extend the warranty period of the product in case of any delay.
I wrote some words. I think it's necessary to tell you my opinion.
The development of DA005 has undergone a lot of testing and listening. We focus more on listening tests. In my first few years in the field of audio product development, I also focused on instrument testing to study various data results of products through testing. However, it is finally found that we cannot express the actual listening feeling of audio equipment through the limited test method of audio analyzer. For example, in the process of development, it is very easy to see an interesting phenomenon that capacitors, resistors, wires and even solder of different brands or series will directly change the sound, but when these parts are changed, we can't check the change of test data through the analyzer. Once I made two DACs and did a blind listening test with my friends to verify some conclusions. I used exactly the same circuit board, resistor, capacitor, IC, etc. in short, the two DACs are exactly the same except for the different solder. As a result, the two DACs showed completely different sound styles when replaying music, and even there was a gap in sound quality, such as their dynamic expression of sound, transparency and so on. The two DACs are made of exactly the same materials, so we can't distinguish them by audio analyzer.
I know there is an argument that wire and fuse are metaphysics, and "burn-in" is also metaphysics.
Before I know enough about it, I also agree that these are metaphysics. But it is likely that there are some "data" that we cannot detect through the existing analyzer.
I have seriously thought about why the "burn-in" will bring obvious sound changes. Even the newly welded equipment after standing for a few days without electricity will have a more natural listening feeling than the newly welded equipment. The basic components of audio equipment - resistor, capacitor, inductor, solder, IC, etc. are composed of basic metal atoms and compound molecules. When the machine is powered on, these parts can be activated, electrons and ions migrate continuously, and even the materials inside the component vibrate due to the change of current frequency. This process will produce some changes inside the component. But it may not be a favorable change, so we need to try different components repeatedly. The goal is to find those components that are just right for the change after full activation. For example, it usually takes at least 5-7 days to determine whether a type of capacitor is suitable. If there is not enough time, the sound will be different every day.
Because of the existence of the above situation, it will directly lead to a problem, that is, the time and energy spent by listening and adjustment is far greater than the instrument test. For this reason, we usually need at least three years to update a product. Carefully update products, that is why we have many loyal customers.
I usually think that if there is a analyzer which can effectively detect these changes, the process of developing products will be much easier and faster.
I respect ASR's test. They have excellent test equipment, even have some authority. but I don't think this test conclusion has a direct relationship with the sound performance of the product. However, I will seek a high-performance testing instrument to review the ASR test. If my customers are dissatisfied with the instrument test performance of the product, we will update the design to the customers who need it in the next few months to make the updated product have good enough instrument test performance. We will extend the warranty period of the product in case of any delay.
Users who are viewing this thread
