Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 Review (DAC)

[xaviescacs]

The assumption here is that break-in has no measurable consequences? I'm not joking.

At this price point, an exhaustive quality control of each device is to be presumed. That's not enough break-in?

 

[AudioSceptic]

The assumption here is that break-in has no measurable consequences? I'm not joking.

Would you like to explain to us how you think "break-in"/"burn-in" works?

 

[Jimbob54]

Here you go:

'' As for SQ in the new Musetec, the bottom line is that I found the improvement astonishing. I didn't think that was possible within the same fundamental design shared with the LKS and many other DACs. Power supplies and quality parts really matter. Bass quality and deep extension, a roundness, body, liquidity and space given to instruments. Full harmonic envelopes. Pinpoint instrumental location. For this classical music listener finding a component that can bring out the space and detail of an unamplified group of 100 (or even three) musicians is something I sought in analog, and now seek in digital. In summary: low level detail, the same as we seek in analog. The way notes start and stop. Separation of instrumental (and voice) choruses is what I found in the LKS and now far more refined in the Musetec. I hear things in familiar digital classical recordings that I didn't hear before. In summary it works and represents value for me.''

I like that he has still managed to tick every box on the bingo card even in such a concise review. Stereophile and the like would need two pages to cover that same ground.

REVIEW: Musetec MH-DA005 DAC Processors - Mel - Digital Drive

REVIEW: Musetec MH-DA005 DAC Processors - Mel - Digital Drive

www.audioasylum.com

Brilliant.

 

[Ra1zel]

I agree.

With a solved technology like a DAC, the price alone should set of warning lights. When a piece of kit comes for at least 10x the price of a perfectly performing alternative, I can think of only 2 scenarios: incompetence or snake oil vendor.

Or you know, nice machined chassis, high quality volume knob, long warranty with good customer service, premium looks and feel.

Not everything has to look like shit and cause headaches from user experience with only service option being in China.

 

[DBB]

At this price point, an exhaustive quality control of each device is to be presumed. That's not enough

Would you like to explain to us how you think "break-in"/"burn-in" works?

I understand. Since the concept is totally rejected here with absolute certainty, I assume, break-in/burn-in is a laughable notion.

I'm not likely to make any progress here. I will say this. The issue is not what you know but what you don't know. It is epistemological. Science progresses by considering data that conflicts or challenges what is currently believed to be true. Dogma is not science.

 

[Bleib]

I understand. Since the concept is totally rejected here with absolute certainty, I assume, break-in/burn-in is a laughable notion.

I'm not likely to make any progress here. I will say this. The issue is not what you know but what you don't know. It is epistemological. Science progresses by considering data that conflicts or challenges what is currently believed to be true. Dogma is not science.

It's not dogma if it's something that has been tested. Example:

Is Headphones Break-in Real? 120-hour Burn-in Test

Headphones break-in, or burn-in, refers to the idea that the sound of headphones tend to change over time and certain headphones need to be used for a while before they settle into a more optimum sound. We put this idea to the test.

www.rtings.com

 

[xaviescacs]

I understand. Since the concept is totally rejected here with absolute certainty, I assume, break-in/burn-in is a laughable notion.

I'm not likely to make any progress here. I will say this. The issue is not what you know but what you don't know. It is epistemological. Science progresses by considering data that conflicts or challenges what is currently believed to be true. Dogma is not science.

Who is talking about a dogma? Who is laughing? Those are legitimate questions. How much break-in is necessary? Because if the time needed is arbitrarily high until the gear measures well, then we have an epistemological problem

 

[Veri]

I understand. Since the concept is totally rejected here with absolute certainty, I assume, break-in/burn-in is a laughable notion.

I'm not likely to make any progress here. I will say this. The issue is not what you know but what you don't know. It is epistemological. Science progresses by considering data that conflicts or challenges what is currently believed to be true. Dogma is not science.

Item is used: "maybe it deteriorated over time. maybe it's broken". Item is new: "maybe it needs break-in".
Can't expect amirm to check it fresh and then after 30/60/90 days though can we now.

 

[DBB]

It's not dogma if it's something that has been tested. Example:

Is Headphones Break-in Real? 120-hour Burn-in Test

Headphones break-in, or burn-in, refers to the idea that the sound of headphones tend to change over time and certain headphones need to be used for a while before they settle into a more optimum sound. We put this idea to the test.

www.rtings.com

Item is used: "maybe it deteriorated over time. maybe it's broken". Item is new: "maybe it needs break-in".
Can't expect amirm to check it fresh and then after 30/60/90 days though can we now.

Why not? That would be truly useful. In science there are no final answers.

 

[Bleib]

Why not? That would be truly useful. In science there are no final answers.

You seriously think that things haven't been tested over time?
Even if such time consuming tests were done all the time, you could still add a third excuse, well, it's broken somehow from the beginning.
BUY ANOTHER ONE! And ANOTHER!

Maybe it's just not that great. Especially for the price.

 

[xaviescacs]

In science there are no final answers.

Science is not the first word that comes to mind for such a procedure....

No, really, come on, be reasonable. This is a solid state device, like trillions running among us with amazing stability. Many DACs have been tested here, new and used, and no sign of this burn-in effect has been detected so far. Talking Bayesan, so to speak, we can safely say that given this information gathered up to now, the probability that this DAC behaves differently is quite low....

 

[DBB]

Science is not the first word that comes to mind for such a procedure....

No, really, come on, be reasonable. This is a solid state device, like trillions running among us with amazing stability. Many DACs have been tested here, new and used, and no sign of this burn-in effect has been detected so far. Talking Bayesan, so to speak, we can safely say that given this information gathered up to now, the probability that this DAC behaves differently is quite low....

That's an interesting point. I am not a follower of this forum so I didn't know that. I will try to get to my bottom line point later. Gotta go now.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I understand. Since the concept is totally rejected here with absolute certainty, I assume, break-in/burn-in is a laughable notion.

I'm not likely to make any progress here. I will say this. The issue is not what you know but what you don't know. It is epistemological. Science progresses by considering data that conflicts or challenges what is currently believed to be true. Dogma is not science.

So you can't explain it but just "know" it's real?

Let's say that I've never heard of "break-in" before. Regardless of what knowledge I might (not) have of electronics (or science in general), basic logic leads me to ask, "OK, so if the performance improves over a few hours of use, why doesn't the manufacturer do this before shipping the product? Why send out a product that they know is not performing at its best and shows the brand in a bad light? Who would be that stupid?"

 

[sarumbear]

Such a shame ... they have invested a lot into components without measurable success.
Maybe they need some AP unit or at least decent soundcard?
View attachment 207326

But it has a silver plated power transformer!

 

[sarumbear]

The assumption here is that break-in has no measurable consequences? I'm not joking.

What component do you expect to be broken in?

 

[respice finem]

You seriously think that things haven't been tested over time?
Even if such time consuming tests were done all the time, you could still add a third excuse, well, it's broken somehow from the beginning.
BUY ANOTHER ONE! And ANOTHER!

Maybe it's just not that great. Especially for the price.

Prior Art by a known company: "you're holding it wrong"

sidenote: If this "burn-in" were so important, it would be mandatory to do it in-factory at least in the higher price ranges, otherwise the manufacturer wouldn't be able to perform QC properly.

Ceterum censeo: it's mostly B.S.

 

[sarumbear]

I forgot to mention that I did no see any regulatory/safety certification on the box.

Interesting as they state that they have a presence in the EU as CLEAR Components

 

[Veri]

Why not? That would be truly useful. In science there are no final answers.

Because it would be quite literally a waste of time. Major implementation mistakes like this:

do not magically get solved with some warm up so they can be pointed out from one measurement.
Temperature stability measurement is usually not very eventful, hence not done very often.. 0.5-1dB fluctuation won't be audible.

 

[antcollinet]

I understand. Since the concept is totally rejected here with absolute certainty, I assume, break-in/burn-in is a laughable notion.

I'm not likely to make any progress here. I will say this. The issue is not what you know but what you don't know. It is epistemological. Science progresses by considering data that conflicts or challenges what is currently believed to be true. Dogma is not science.

What data? In order for data to conflict or challenge there must be data.

Hint - someone listening now, then listening again 6 weeks later and saying it got better - is not data.

Break in, in solid state electronics is not a thing. If you think it is, you have to point to the physical penomena that are actually happening (and can be measured), and explain how the signal is changed/improved by those phenomena.

And don't come back with:

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

That is just magical thinking. it would not be possible to design all the stuff we do with modern day electronics if we didn't understand how it works.

 

[muslhead]

The assumption here is that break-in has no measurable consequences? I'm not joking.

lol