Musical Fidelity MX-DAC Review (Balanced DAC)

[amirm]

What about those other threads where experts here make the case that 16/44 cannot be distinguished from 24/96 in blind testing? And I mean real experts, not the usual dilettantes like me.

Which experts are those? I have passed such tests and there is peer review published paper that indicates audibility.

Here are the public tests I have taken:

---
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac

13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01 50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02 75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03 50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04 31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05 18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06 10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08 3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09 2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10 1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11 0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12 0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13 0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14 0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15 0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)

As you see, 14 out of 15 right which is almost perfect.

And Mark's test tracks he produced for a test on AVS:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav

18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

Again, 10 out of 11.

 

[restorer-john]

@amirm Can you upload the test tracks used in those two ABXs and the details of how they were produced in the first place? Or is this discussed in another thread someplace?

 

[amirm]

@amirm Can you upload the test tracks used in those two ABXs and the details of how they were produced in the first place? Or is this discussed in another thread someplace?

This goes back a decade or more and was discussed on another forum. Mark Waldrep of AIX Records had done the recordings himself. I looked and found the download link: http://www.avsforum.com/uploads/AVS_AIX_HRA_Test_Files_2.zip

It is massive in size.

 

[rdenney]

Which experts are those? I have passed such tests and there is peer review published paper that indicates audibility.

Here are the public tests I have taken:

---
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/08/02 13:52:46

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\01 - Sample A - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Archimago\24-bit Audio Test (Hi-Res 24-96, FLAC, 2014)\02 - Sample B - Bozza - La Voie Triomphale.flac

13:52:46 : Test started.
13:54:02 : 01/01 50.0%
13:54:11 : 01/02 75.0%
13:54:57 : 02/03 50.0%
13:55:08 : 03/04 31.3%
13:55:15 : 04/05 18.8%
13:55:24 : 05/06 10.9%
13:55:32 : 06/07 6.3%
13:55:38 : 07/08 3.5%
13:55:48 : 08/09 2.0%
13:56:02 : 09/10 1.1%
13:56:08 : 10/11 0.6%
13:56:28 : 11/12 0.3%
13:56:37 : 12/13 0.2%
13:56:49 : 13/14 0.1%
13:56:58 : 14/15 0.0%
13:57:05 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 14/15 (0.0%)

As you see, 14 out of 15 right which is almost perfect.

And Mark's test tracks he produced for a test on AVS:
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/10 18:50:44

File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_A2.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\AIX AVS Test files\On_The_Street_Where_You_Live_B2.wav

18:50:44 : Test started.
18:51:25 : 00/01 100.0%
18:51:38 : 01/02 75.0%
18:51:47 : 02/03 50.0%
18:51:55 : 03/04 31.3%
18:52:05 : 04/05 18.8%
18:52:21 : 05/06 10.9%
18:52:32 : 06/07 6.3%
18:52:43 : 07/08 3.5%
18:52:59 : 08/09 2.0%
18:53:10 : 09/10 1.1%
18:53:19 : 10/11 0.6%
18:53:23 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 10/11 (0.6%)

Again, 10 out of 11.

Amir, I know you can tell the difference. I've also heard the type of training you had to endure to develop that skill. Now, just how relevant is that in distinguishing between a device that is solidly average versus a device that is broken? I would think even an idiot like me should be able to hear just how broken something is, if it's actually broken. With all due respect, words mean things.

But you are right that JJ reported the limits of human perception at something around 24/68 (or was it 20/68), not 16/44, though that's hearing well beyond my own.

As for me, I don't want the training that would make that difference obvious. Though, as I've heard you describe your listening strategies, I don't think you claim those differences are remotely obvious.

Rick "who can hear harmonic distortion to about -30 to -36 dBFS" Denney

 

[Sheriff1972]

I am not an audio historian. Nor is this information always easy to find. I do look to see if a product is being sold currently and this one is. It also has a review as recent as 11 months ago:

10/20. If the company doesn't think it is too old to be sold or reviewed, then I am not going to second guess them.

In case of vintage products, I do spend a few minutes looking up the history but even then, it is often hard.

Fair point. So let's just say 'this DAC was first introduced in 2015 and is still on sale today...'

A lot has happened in 6 years))

 

[Sheriff1972]

Let's make it a more fair analogy (since CRT's don't fulfill any of the same requirements as an OLED panel beyond watching SDTV which no longer even exists), and let's say a company still has a decent plasma TV on the market. Let's compare that with a current panel.

As it happens, I did this recently, sort-of by accident. In a fit of acquisitiveness, I bought a new inexpensive LED panel at Costco to replace our now 15-year-old budget-line (for its day) 50" Maxent plasma display. After a day, I boxed the new one up and took it back. The 4K LED panel lacked any of the brilliance of the ancient plasma display, though it was undoubtedly cheaper, cooler, lighter, more efficient, and more feature-packed. If only it had the colors, saturation, and contrast of the plasma display. (I don't have a way to watch 4K, so that feature fulfilled no requirement of importance to me).

I tried an OLED, and it was fractionally better visually than the Maxent, but it was also a couple of thousand bucks, and that particular itch couldn't tolerate that much scratching. So, I kept the old one and it still looks pretty good. In terms of measured performance, it was still better than a lot of what is currently on the market, but not as good as the best of what is on the market. A current plasma display would be too expensive--at least as much if not more than an OLED which is a bit better--for what it is. But it would be better than the conventional LED displays selling for cheap.

Where this analogy breaks down is that with DACs, the cheap stuff is just as good, in SINAD measurements, as the expensive stuff. In my TV analogy, cheap LED's are simply not as good as old plasma displays, which are themselves not quite as good as the best of what is currently available (which are all OLED technology).

There would not be a problem with a plasma producer saying: "this classic technology is still as visually dynamic as much of what is currently available, and blah, blah, blah..." If it claimed to be the best, performance measures would refute that. If priced as high as OLED, it would be a poor value. A good review would clearly complain about both points. But neither could be justification for calling it broken. Even if the plasma display is obsolete technology, it still performs quite well compared to what is currently available, fitting into the middle of current products. A used one for $400 might provide a much better visual experience for a buyer than a new cheapie for the same or more money.

That seems to fit this Musical Fidelity product--average performance by today's standards that is still quite usable, but too expensive for what it does and a poor value. But if I found one on the use market for a couple of hundred dollars, I might get good service from it, given that it has some features current new hundred-dollar DACs don't support.

Rick "whose plasma TV will probably blow up tomorrow" Denney

I enjoyed the read. I think I fall into this bucket myself still using the Marantz HD-DAC1 when listening to our products.

Old unit but I preferred this to the miniDSP SHD.

Mike 'a happy LG OLED user' Gregory.

 

[JJB70]

Good engineering does not mean engineering something for ultimate performance. It may be if ultimate performance is necessary but for most applications good engineering means a range of things including meeting the needs of the user, efficiency, meeting cost limits, product durability and serviceability etc. Going beyond what is usable is, in most cases, both pointless and undesirable as it is adding cost for no usable benefit. I used to work in warship design and in warship design verification (some of the projects I worked on are sailing around Asian waters as part of an international willy waving exercise). Good design really matters in the case of warships as the consequences of bad design really matter. And I can say that nobody is interested in driving up costs and complexity chasing meaningless metrics, they are interested in a design being fit for its intended purpose.
In an audio context, how many people would discern designs derided for poor performance in a level matched double blind test? Now out of that minority how many would do it without needing to listen to the gear rather than listening to music? Objective evaluation is good, but obsessing over metrics becomes just another form of subjective preference. If people want to chase metrics that's fine, we should all be free to pursue our own path. But I think people should be honest.
In this case the product is too expensive for what it is in my opinion and offers no audible benefit over much cheaper gear. However, it is also true that its audible performance is not really any worse than more expensive gear that people wax lyrical about.

 

[JSmith]

it is adding cost for no usable benefit.

What does this mean?

This product is very expensive and many DAC's much cheaper do the same job, yet they were able to obtain great performance for little cost.

MF should pull this model.



JSmith

 

[JJB70]

What does this mean?

This product is very expensive and many DAC's much cheaper do the same job, yet they were able to obtain great performance for little cost.

MF should pull this model.



JSmith

I don't necessarily disagree, but the same argument applies to most DACs on the market. DACs are a commodity and it is harder to find one which is audibly degraded than one which just works. I find the mystique created around DACs to be silly, personally, but I think we should be consistent. If gear passes a level matched double blind test without inducing anxiety at getting it wrong then fine, otherwise gear is no better or worse. What does alter is build quality, user interface, feature set, industrial design, after sales service etc but those things are very different from chasing a performance metric.

 

[charleski]

I totally get the notion that we want to reward good engineering, and good engineering is available for a really good price at present. But I still can't for a moment tell the difference between the DACs in my vintage CD players, or the several DACs of varying performance in my systems, even when comparing CDs to high-res.

Yes, that’s a good point if you’re listening to the source untouched. There’s no real benefit in having more than 16bits in the source material.
But you want your DAC to provide headroom for DSP. You want to be sure that it will continue to provide full 16bit performance even after the data has been scaled down by EQ, ReplayGain and possibly a digital volume control. That’s the benefit of using a DAC that can handle 20bits or more. Of course this implies that you’re making up the gain in the analog domain, so that part of the system needs a low noise floor as well.

 

[Lupin]

What does this mean?

This product is very expensive and many DAC's much cheaper do the same job, yet they were able to obtain great performance for little cost.

MF should pull this model.



JSmith

Following that logic Mola Mola should pull the Tambaqui, yet it gets an recommendation from Amir.
There are many DACS that are much cheaper, far less than 1/4 the price, with very similar or better performance.


My takeaway from ASR reviews;
Review itself is objective with measured results hard to argue about, the numbers are the numbers.
However the conclusion/recommendation part (which determines which panther is used it seems) is subjective and not always consistent.

 

[xaviescacs]

But they sell this DAC saying it's prepared for the future, because it accepts DSD and some high sample rates. This doesn't couple very good with this 16 bit notion of transparency. Audibility or not it's not an excuse, I don't care about audibility at this stage. There are other components that add distortion and whatever, but this component should do its job as advertised. I didn't buy this expecting a "lively" and "realistic" sound. I bought this because at that time a DAC with the specs published in their website for the price I paid was a good deal. The worst part is that they believe in neutrality, since they advertise it. And they know how to build DACs since the V90, a bit older than this, tested here is 105 SINAD!! Headless.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

I think false advertising is one of the biggest issues in any field, but in this hobby, it's even more plagued because those claims are often backed by "veterans" in the hobby. Coupled with the overall sentiment that people will listen tend to listen with their subjective side (which is a normal thing imo), companies sure got a good recipe to keep selling insanely priced products whether they're actually good or not.

There might be more trend settlers that I'm not aware of, but part of me is very thankful that nwavguy and amir helped to expose the absurd parts in this hobby. I believe that if there weren't any objective influencers, the race toward amazing and affordable products might have not happened yet.

 

[Jimbob54]

My takeaway from ASR reviews;
Review itself is objective with measured results hard to argue about, the numbers are the numbers.
However the conclusion/recommendation part (which determines which panther is used it seems) is subjective and not always consistent.

I think the panthers are Amir's little bit of fun. Yes, they align (not always perfectly) with the recommendation. They should also always be considered alongside the price. My takeaways are:

If you are in the market for a new X and have $Y and product Z gets a golfing/ soccer panther, it should be on your shortlist if features match your requirements.

If Z gets a headless, I think no one interested in well measuring gear should even consider it.

Everything inbetween comes down to mix of features and aesthetics as well as availability / warranty.

For electronics , none of that necessarily means what you hear from any of them will matter one jot- but why pay good money for headless?

 

[sarumbear]

I would think even an idiot like me should be able to hear just how broken something is, if it's actually broken. With all due respect, words mean things.

Just because you cannot doesn't mean it is inaudible. There are other humans on the planet besides you. Besides, where do you see the word broken?

 

[sarumbear]

So let's just say 'this DAC was first introduced in 2015 and is still on sale today...'

A lot has happened in 6 years))

No let's not. If the manufacturer is proud to sell a model, we then should be free to test it and compare it to other similar devices on the market.

Why is everyone an advocate of manufacturers? It sounds like a lobbyer convention here.

 

[sarumbear]

My takeaway from ASR reviews;
Review itself is objective with measured results hard to argue about, the numbers are the numbers.
However the conclusion/recommendation part (which determines which panther is used it seems) is subjective and not always consistent.

Bravo! That is how it is: Trust yourself for the data, then read what the tester, who is a known expert, thinks.

 

[xaviescacs]

Fair point. So let's just say 'this DAC was first introduced in 2015 and is still on sale today...'

A lot has happened in 6 years))

But again, the V90 from the same company, which is from 2013, performs better.

 

[Sheriff1972]

No let's not. If the manufacturer is proud to sell a model, we then should be free to test it and compare it to other similar devices on the market.

Why is everyone an advocate of manufacturers? It sounds like a lobbyer convention here.

I agree. I am surprised that this unit is still on sale now (I didn't look it up, but knowing this was around years ago I assumed it must be EOL)

To me it's a bit like Google still advertising the original Pixel smartphone today...

Smile ..it's Friday

 

[Sheriff1972]

But again, the V90 from the same company, which is from 2013, performs better.

Could be. Same company, different designers, similar era...

Each product on its merits. 2013 and 2015 is a bit different than 2021.

My point is that it's a long time between the introduction of that product and the chips of the day to today's SOTA designs.

I am not an advocate of Manufacturers (although I work for one) and if MF choose to keep this product on sale then this is up to them (and accept the consequences)

I thoroughly enjoy Amir's deep dives into products, but the comments section does tend to get a bit lively!