Musical Fidelity MX-DAC Review (Balanced DAC)

[sarumbear]

Actual tests of the very first generation machines in 1983:
View attachment 155290

What does “Distortion @ 1kHz re 0 VU” mean?

 

[restorer-john]

What does “Distortion @ 1kHz re 0 VU” mean

0dBFS. The term wasn't even used back then.

Bear in mind, this is one of the first comprehensive reviews of several CD players in the entire world. Reviewers had to wait until they could get hold of test discs before they could assess anything.

 

[sarumbear]

0dBFS. The term wasn't even used back then.

Bear in mind, this is one of the first comprehensive reviews of several CD players in the entire world. Reviewers had to wait until they could get hold of test discs before they could assess anything.

View attachment 155292

Thank you for clarification. I would assume it would be -18/20 dBFS because 0 VU used to mean reference level as the VU metre also has plus values.

 

[Mike-48]

Headless is a bit harsh IMO, it’s not terribly broken.

I would argue that the low-level linearity is badly broken.

 

[MediumRare]

It is not audibly transparent. SINAD is at 1 kHz only. You can't use that to run with it and say across the board this DAC is transparent.

If you want to run with that anyway, there are 180 DACs that measure better than this across wide range of prices and features. In what version of universe landing at 180th position is anything acceptable?

CD format was created 40+ years ago. To barely approach its noise floor is simply unacceptable. What is worse is company enticing buyers by saying it is better than any other DAC specifically on measurements of distortion, noise and linearity. This product as I mentioned, needs to have been replaced with a better platform by now. There is no reason for me to recommend it at all and hence the headless panther. If technical specs is what they want to sell it on, then they need to build something that excels at that.

I'd like to learn more about how to interpret the likelihood transparency from the measurements. From this chart it seems to be the worst case is still transparent. But I'd like to learn.

They key issue here is not whether you (or I would recommend it) because, of course, you would not. But you (in your reply) just equated "not recommended" with "headless (broken) panther"; that is not what we are used to and, with respect, does not seem fair.

 

[MediumRare]

I would argue that the low-level linearity is badly broken.

It still exceeds the resolution of a CD - can you hear the difference between -100 dB and -102 dB?

 

[sarumbear]

It still exceeds the resolution of a CD - can you hear the difference between -100 dB and -102 dB?

As @amirm asked, why would you accept a measurement just about better than a 40 year old technology? Wouldn’t you want something that satisfies the Hi-Res format that every music distributor have started to use?

If CD quality was enough why are the entire music industry are upgrading to Hi-Res?

 

[gvl]

I would argue that the low-level linearity is badly broken.

What's there is enough.

 

[sarumbear]

What's there is enough.

Maybe for you but not for me. Do please try not to patronise.

 

[JJB70]

As @amirm

If CD quality was enough why are the entire music industry are upgrading to Hi-Res?

To make more money? To convince people to purchase music again? Because they need something to maintain sales? All of this and more?

 

[sarumbear]

To make more money? To convince people to purchase music again? Because they need something to maintain sales? All of this and more?

Maybe we should have stayed using incandescent light bulbs. Those LED bulb manufacturers are making us to buy the light bulbs we already have.

 

[JJB70]

Maybe we should have stayed using incandescent light bulbs. Those LED bulb manufacturers are making us to buy the light bulbs we already have.

Great argument, well done.

 

[sarumbear]

Great argument, well done.

I hope you realise that I was being sarcastic.

 

[JJB70]

I hope you realise that I was being sarcastic.

No, I never realized that, well done.

 

[rdenney]

As @amirm asked, why would you accept a measurement just about better than a 40 year old technology? Wouldn’t you want something that satisfies the Hi-Res format that every music distributor have started to use?

If CD quality was enough why are the entire music industry are upgrading to Hi-Res?

But, but, but, but....

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.

It has been argued cogently on ASR that the industry is moving to hi-res for reasons unrelated to audible improvements. Those reasons are probably commercial--persuading people to repurchase their library (or pay for a premium streaming service) yet again.

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.

Rick "either Redbook is good enough or it isn't" Denney

 

[rdenney]

I hope you realise that I was being sarcastic.

So was he.

Rick "thinking there's some space between being an apologist for Musical Fidelity and declaring that an overpriced average-performing DAC is broken" Denney

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

I keep seeing the comments referring that $9 apple dongle to so many other products in ASR.
When will you guys understand that the dongle is a different breed in comparison with let's say speaker amplifiers, mono amplifiers, preamps, desktop DACs, and more? I too think this is overpriced but the way some folks here bash the product(s) reminds me how some of the hate for ASR from outsiders is not unwarranted.

Also, this product was released several years ago, at that time the race toward flawless measurements hasn't kicked into gear yet. You can say that the ASR recommendation from Amir is in the current year and for the current market and audience then I will agree. But back then there simply weren't too many great products so it isn't like this DAC is garbage for it's time, or even in the current market.

 

[restorer-john]

I keep seeing the comments referring that $9 apple dongle to so many other products in ASR.

Yes, it's just a silly comparison.

Can you input 2 optical Toslink fibre optic cables, 2 coaxial RCAs, a USB cable and get twin sets of balanced XLRs and RCA ouptputs in that $9 dongle? Nope.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

Yes, it's just a silly comparison.

Can you input 2 optical Toslink fibre optic cables, 2 coaxial RCAs, a USB cable and get twin sets of balanced XLRs and RCA ouptputs in that $9 dongle? Nope.

Yeah, then the chassis alone, even if it was the ugliest kind available can simply go way beyond $9.
There are just so many different factors that some folks here didn't stop to consider, they might just be so attracted to the cheapest product with the highest SINAD measured and they forgot everything else.

 

[respice finem]

I guess the problem is not a single parameter or a set of parameters.

The problem IMHO is that
a) there is no universally accepted norm for what is really "audibly transparent" (apart from the ancient DIN 45500 which is laughable this day and age, though certainly not made by deaf people),
b) the "sins" of the audio chain add up with every device in it (which includes the production side of the music we listen to) and
c) it's a human "feature" not to be satisfied with anything, so the better will always be the enemy of the good.

One person may be satisfied with a certain level of quality, but the other one may not, be it for the audibility or just for "specs".
And probably no one will be satisfied having paid good money for (comparatively) bad specs, whether audible or not.
"Now it's bad, because now I know it"...