Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
@mitch2 - Thank you for your reply! No worries about not wanting to do the videos... I understand. I appreciate you sharing your add'l thoughts. I especially liked your analogy of stepping "half the distance to the wall". Thanks again for your efforts and describing both the similarities and differences between all the various dac's in this thread. Wishing you a very Happy Holiday Season, Don |
Mojo Audio Mystique Z Q DAC I have spent days now going back and forth listening to the Mystique Z NC and the Mystique Z Q DACs by Mojo Audio. As discussed in my review of the Mojo Audio Mystique Z NC, my set-up allows me to switch instantaneously between the two DACs by pushing just one button on my remote, which changes my preamp input. Since both Mojo Audio DACs have the same output voltage, there was no level matching or other shenanigans required, just push the one button to switch back and forth between the two DACs, on the fly. As much as I wanted to report here that I found the Mystique Z Q to be a runaway winner compared to the Z NC, it didn’t quite work out that way. The two DACs sounded quite similar to me, which should not be particularly surprising since the Mystique Z NC and Mystique Z Q are the exact same DAC, except that the Z Q contains Bybee Quantum Purifiers installed in strategic locations. My understanding is that Bybee AC purifiers replace the medical grade AC input filter, and Bybee "Gold Slipstream Quantum Purifiers" are located between the output stage and the output connectors. The good news is that, during my focused listening, I did perceive improvements resulting from the Bybee purifiers in the Z Q. I heard the Mystique Z Q to be overall a little bit smoother (more relaxed) and more organically textured than the Z NC. I heard better defined bass texture and smoother high frequencies, i.e., more shimmer than splash on cymbals. These types of improvements indicate the Bybee’s must be lowering the noise floor and improving resolution. Benjamin told me, in addition to what I heard, he also finds the Z Q to have a more effortless, faster, and less restricted transient quality, and I would not argue. In my system, the Mystique Z NC sounded great so this is not a case of fixing or substantially upgrading the Z NC, but rather refining and improving an already very good sounding product. While I heard the improvements described above, the two DACs sounded close enough that without the ability to perform a sighted direct A/B comparison I may have struggled to identify which of them were playing. My previous experience with adding Bybee purifiers to AC components and speakers indicates I may be less sensitive to hearing the effects of Bybee products than some other listeners. In this case, I believe the Bybee’s are having a positive but subtle effect, at least to my ears. I have heard from others that the Bybee’s are likely to improve over time, so the sound of the Z Q should only get better. I will not make value decisions for others but, between the two, I would choose the Mystique Z Q and know that I have the best DAC currently manufactured by Mojo Audio, even if the sound quality of their second-best DAC is close to the flagship. Of course, others may choose differently. The good news is that either way, you end up with a really nice sounding DAC and the best of the Mojo Audio DACs I have heard. |
Thank you again Mitch2 for the in-depth review. As I always say: "there's no need to reinvent the wheel, just to get it to spin more true." And that is pretty much all we've been doing at Mojo Audio. Our Mystique v3, EVO, and X, were the same DAC circuit with differences in component parts, chassis, and layout. Each design was built on the shoulders of the previous with subtle refinements. Our Mystique Z uses nearly identical chassis, power supplies, and component parts to our Mystique X, so I can see why Mitch2 finds they sound so similar. Of course what people may not realize is that before we introduce a new component part (like the Bybee purifiers) we have to give it a fair audition. That means we have to build two identical DACs with only one part different, break them in for hundreds of hours, and then do the comparison. Quite time consuming. You all may not realize how many of these new component parts and modules we audition every year and how few of them that actually go into our next gen DAC. @johnny2bad I totally agree with you. That's why Mojo Audio has never put an attenuator in our DACs before. It comes down to us having to literally put a world-class preamp and our best DAC into one chassis. And that is going to end up being quite large, quite heavy, and quite expensive. I don't know how many of you might have been at AXPONA or RMAF in 2017. We had a headphone setup in a private room with a 70 pound SET DHT single-stage 20B tube pre/headphone amp made by Exit Level Audio. At AXPONA our room was awarded "Best Sound (cost no object)" and at RMAF we were awarded "Best in Show" by TAS. Here's a link to the TAS AXPONA show report: scroll down to the bottom to see this MONSTER pre/headphone amp and our Mystique v3 DAC. "Best Sound (cost no object) AXPONA 2017" We bought the license to reproduce that pre/headphone amp from Exit Level Audio and that is what we're considering using as the preamp section of our pre/DAC. So no, we are not slapping a passive attenuator onto one of our DACs. We just plan on using the best sounding remote-controlled attenuator we can find. We're auditioning the Khozmo AMRG, Z-Foil, and silver AVC attenuators. It won't be hard to design a tube DAC that will rival or beat the who's who of tube DACs on the market. The hard part is going to be getting this pre/DAC to weigh under 50 pounds and getting it to cost under $20K. Sorry...we won't be able to do the same exotic woodwork as Exit Level Audio, though we are considering a wooden chassis with a metal top-plate. Well, now you know what I'll be doing in 2026. Don't expect to see anything more than a prototype until 2027. |
@mitch2 So I am really interested in the sound of the Aries Cerat DAC's. Do you notice a Tube sound or 2nd order harmonics with the Helene and does the tubes give it a different sound than the Mojo Audio DACs. The way Aries Cerat uses the R2R chips they say makes them extremely dynamic have you noticed this? How detailed are they? Sorry to bombard you with all these question. |
