dCS Bartok versus MBS Discrete DACs?

[Alpha121]

Guys,

I am upgrading across my system, and seeking to replace the Schiit Yiggy (which is great and has served me well) with a more advanced DAC. I have come to focus on two well regarded brands and models: The dCS Bartok (non-Apex) and the MBS Discrete. Both are at the entry point of their respective well-regarded product lines. I plan to keep my pre-amp, as I am highly satisfied with it. Amps will probably change.

My questions are these for those who have such experience:
1) How does the presentation differ in the dCS versus MSB, in terms of the way such characteristics are viewed? Separation, sound field, etc?
2) How do the other sound qualities we are commonly concerned with, manifest themselves, such as blackness, smoothness, organic nature, brittleness, dryness, whatever... in each unit?
3) Lastly, how does the technological approach taken by each company, and used up the product line, account for what is heard?

I exclusively stream Qobuz for my listening at whatever highest resolution is available.

Thank you so much for your kind observations. I only ask that this thread stay focused on the questions posed and the dCS and MSB units indicated in this topic, and not devolve into a recitation of recommendations for other DACs.

Thank you.

 

[Elberoth]

Had both. MSB will be smoother and more organic sounding. dCS more transparent and detailed.

 

[shawnf]

If you are planning to still use the DCS Network Bridge, then you won't be getting the best out of the MSB. The best interface, which I have heard on a range of systems, if via USB into the Pro ISL interface.

The workaround is to use digital AES/EBU into the Discrete and then connect the Word Clock output from the Discrete to the DCS Network Bridge. This way you are guaranteed the clock in the DAC is the master clock, giving optimal performance.

That said, Pro ISL interface is still better because you get total isolation from transport to DAC. Just IMHO.

 

[Alpha121]

If you are planning to still use the DCS Network Bridge, then you won't be getting the best out of the MSB. The best interface, which I have heard on a range of systems, if via USB into the Pro ISL interface.

The workaround is to use digital AES/EBU into the Discrete and then connect the Word Clock output from the Discrete to the DCS Network Bridge. This way you are guaranteed the clock in the DAC is the master clock, giving optimal performance.

That said, Pro ISL interface is still better, IMHO.

Thanks very much, Shawn. And yes, all else equal I would keep the DCS Network Bridge.

I was totally unaware of this approach, so thank you. I will look further.

 

[ecwl]

I would also add that Yggy sounds much closer to MSB than dCS. So if you’ve already tried a bunch of DAC chip DACs around Yggy’s price range and still prefer Yggy, you’ll most likely prefer MSB over dCS.

 

[Alpha121]

I would also add that Yggy sounds much closer to MSB than dCS. So if you’ve already tried a bunch of DAC chip DACs around Yggy’s price range and still prefer Yggy, you’ll most likely prefer MSB over dCS.

Thank you.
I have an original Yggy with the revised analog section. I like the presentation a lot.

In your experience, do you think there is significant improvement to be had going to the MSB Discrete?

 

[ecwl]

Thank you.
I have an original Yggy with the revised analog section. I like the presentation a lot.

In your experience, do you think there is significant improvement to be had going to the MSB Discrete?

The original Yggy uses a 16-bit R2R DAC and if you know what to listen for, you'll notice that it has poor small signal linearity so microdetails are lost and the soundstage depth is shortened. By comparison, the MSB has superior digital filtering and much improved small signal linearity.

The problem is that not everyone can hear or care about digital filtering. A friend just added a Digital Director to his MSB Premier DAC and at first, he was convinced there was no sonic difference. After I told him what to listen for, he recognizes the sonic difference quite easily but felt that for the sonic improvements he got, he didn't think it was worth it.
And similarly, the improvements in small signal linearity may be worth a lot to you and may be worth very little to you.

Personally, I think MSB Discrete is a significant improvement over the original Yggy. But I know some people who would argue the improvements are there but they're not significant. And I also know people who would feel that while the improvements are significant, they don't think it's worth the cost.

Part of the problem is that products like MSB & dCS are like luxury cars. A Honda Civic and a Tesla/BMW take you to where you need to go, particularly in city driving. Is the upgrade from luxury cars worth it? Hard to say since it's so individual dependent. What is for sure is that you're getting diminishing gains from your dollars.

 

[Ian B]

I've had both at different times. I definitely prefer the MSB, which is fairly warm, thick, and analog tone. Maybe a little slow, but big, rich sounding stage.

The Bartok is very digital, has sharp edges, less substance, but very precise, detailed, and does DSD really well. A bit more temperamental with cables. I don't like the network input, and it seemed best from AES.

Neither are the most punchy or dynamic that I've heard.

In that range, my own tastes would be an EMM MA3i, or similar Playback Designs, which are faster and more flowing than the Discrete, and less digital than the Bartok.

But between the two, the Discrete, esp if you can get the Pro USB interface and the biggest power supplies you can afford. It's just more rich and musical, if a bit mellow.

 

[Alpha121]

I've had both at different times. I definitely prefer the MSB, which is fairly warm, thick, and analog tone. Maybe a little slow, but big, rich sounding stage.

The Bartok is very digital, has sharp edges, less substance, but very precise, detailed, and does DSD really well. A bit more temperamental with cables. I don't like the network input, and it seemed best from AES.

Neither are the most punchy or dynamic that I've heard.

In that range, my own tastes would be an EMM MA3i, or similar Playback Designs, which are faster and more flowing than the Discrete, and less digital than the Bartok.

But between the two, the Discrete, esp if you can get the Pro USB interface and the biggest power supplies you can afford. It's just more rich and musical, if a bit mellow.

Ian,

It's funny that you would mention the EMM MA3i, as that is the third choice I was considering.

I considered these two first, as the reviews I have read on the MA3 indicated "Its overall sonic persona leaned more towards lush and fluid than vivid and detailed...".

You seem to think that the MA3 is the best tradeoff?

 

[Ian B]

Ian,

It's funny that you would mention the EMM MA3i, as that is the third choice I was considering.

I considered these two first, as the reviews I have read on the MA3 indicated "Its overall sonic persona leaned more towards lush and fluid than vivid and detailed...".

You seem to think that the MA3 is the best tradeoff?

I would position it between the other two in character, and it happens to be one that I like. All different DAC circuits: R2R, 5 bit Ring DAC, 1 bit DSD. I like how smooth, fluid and natural the DSD DACs sound, but I'd say they are less warm and "gooey" than MSB, and softer edges than MSB or DCS. Probably as detailed as the other two, but if you have the Premiere Power supply that really changes the game for the Discrete in most ways.

I think the MA3i should sound more present and vivid, but I think the drawback I found with last gen Meitner/EMM was the sound being a bit conservative and without so much color richness.

And then there are the chip ones like Weiss and Bricasti than punch pretty hard and are more conventional digital designs.

 

[Lee]

Had both. MSB will be smoother and more organic sounding. dCS more transparent and detailed.

I would argue the dCS is very organic now due to the Apex hardware upgrade.

 

[Lee]

The original Yggy uses a 16-bit R2R DAC and if you know what to listen for, you'll notice that it has poor small signal linearity so microdetails are lost and the soundstage depth is shortened. By comparison, the MSB has superior digital filtering and much improved small signal linearity.

The problem is that not everyone can hear or care about digital filtering. A friend just added a Digital Director to his MSB Premier DAC and at first, he was convinced there was no sonic difference. After I told him what to listen for, he recognizes the sonic difference quite easily but felt that for the sonic improvements he got, he didn't think it was worth it.
And similarly, the improvements in small signal linearity may be worth a lot to you and may be worth very little to you.

Personally, I think MSB Discrete is a significant improvement over the original Yggy. But I know some people who would argue the improvements are there but they're not significant. And I also know people who would feel that while the improvements are significant, they don't think it's worth the cost.

Part of the problem is that products like MSB & dCS are like luxury cars. A Honda Civic and a Tesla/BMW take you to where you need to go, particularly in city driving. Is the upgrade from luxury cars worth it? Hard to say since it's so individual dependent. What is for sure is that you're getting diminishing gains from your dollars.

Ideally you want to listen carefully to both and see which suits you best.

I would argue, as I often do, that diminishing returns are a crutch and the extra 10% or so you get in some metrics actually translates significant and commensurate additional musical engagement.

 

[Lee]

I've had both at different times. I definitely prefer the MSB, which is fairly warm, thick, and analog tone. Maybe a little slow, but big, rich sounding stage.

The Bartok is very digital, has sharp edges, less substance, but very precise, detailed, and does DSD really well. A bit more temperamental with cables. I don't like the network input, and it seemed best from AES.

Neither are the most punchy or dynamic that I've heard.

In that range, my own tastes would be an EMM MA3i, or similar Playback Designs, which are faster and more flowing than the Discrete, and less digital than the Bartok.

But between the two, the Discrete, esp if you can get the Pro USB interface and the biggest power supplies you can afford. It's just more rich and musical, if a bit mellow.

Again, the Bartok is not an edgy digital sound pos-Apex. The weakness of the Bartok was in large part due to the output stage in which Apex offered a ground up redo.

 

[shawnf]

I would position it between the other two in character, and it happens to be one that I like. All different DAC circuits: R2R, 5 bit Ring DAC, 1 bit DSD. I like how smooth, fluid and natural the DSD DACs sound, but I'd say they are less warm and "gooey" than MSB, and softer edges than MSB or DCS. Probably as detailed as the other two, but if you have the Premiere Power supply that really changes the game for the Discrete in most ways.

I think the MA3i should sound more present and vivid, but I think the drawback I found with last gen Meitner/EMM was the sound being a bit conservative and without so much color richness.

And then there are the chip ones like Weiss and Bricasti than punch pretty hard and are more conventional digital designs.

@Alpha121

I owned the Discrete and currently own the Premier. My transport is the Antipodes CX.

For what it's worth. I have demoed the Meitner MA3 and it was really the softest sounding DAC i have heard thus far. I have heard both the Holo May and Spring 3; many called them on the softer sounding side of R2R DACs but in the setup I heard, the Meitner was way more relaxed and softer sounding compared to the Holos and the MSBs. For some reason, I prefer the R2R sound more than Delta Sigma.

I went with MSB after extended demo sessions. They had that punchy AND deep bass extension coupled with the toe tapping factor that really pulled me in.

I would agree and add to what @ecwl highlighted. I have done several low cost tweaks (umbilical upgrades, etc) that really brought the black backgrounds, glare reduction and the imaging, separation and micro details to another level. All this without making hefty investments like getting the Digital Director (though you would need a really good transport to begin with) or the MSB Premier Powerbase.

I stuck with my dual Discrete power supplies after hearing the Powerbase brought only slight incremental improvements to my system. The most obvious and audible for me was with acoustic tracks - with the powerbase the guitar strums were huge and had a really nice golden afterglow effect.

Again, just MHO and YMMV. You will either love or hate MSB's modular approach. If you are a tweaker, like me, the modular design of the MSB can really be a nice to have.

 

[Ian B]

@Alpha121

I owned the Discrete and currently own the Premier. My transport is the Antipodes CX.

For what it's worth. I have demoed the Meitner MA3 and it was really the softest sounding DAC i have heard thus far. I have heard both the Holo May and Spring 3; many called them on the softer sounding side of R2R DACs but in the setup I heard, the Meitner was way more relaxed and softer sounding compared to the Holos and the MSBs. For some reason, I prefer the R2R sound more than Delta Sigma.

I went with MSB after extended demo sessions. They had that punchy AND deep bass extension coupled with the toe tapping factor that really pulled me in.

I would agree and add to what @ecwl highlighted. I have done several low cost tweaks (umbilical upgrades, etc) that really brought the black backgrounds, glare reduction and the imaging, separation and micro details to another level. All this without making hefty investments like getting the Digital Director (though you would need a really good transport to begin with) or the MSB Premier Powerbase.

I stuck with my dual Discrete power supplies after hearing the Powerbase brought only slight incremental improvements to my system. The most obvious and audible for me was with acoustic tracks - with the powerbase the guitar strums were huge and had a really nice golden afterglow effect.

Again, just MHO and YMMV. You will either love or hate MSB's modular approach. If you are a tweaker, like me, the modular design of the MSB can really be a nice to have.

It is hard to put some of this stuff into words, because descriptors can sound contradictory. For instance MSB is warmer than Meitner, but has digital sharp edges (DCS moreso), where Meitner is smoother/softer. So it's like one gives you more analog tone, but slightly more digital waveform, and the other has a more analog or smoothed waveform, but less warm tone.

I've also observed with the Discrete I'd hear a guitar strum as a single musical event, but with Meitner/EMM I would hear each string as separate in time (with a little rounding of the attack). With the older Bartok I had, DCS also had some of that time separation, but not as defined, and with sharper edges. For some, that means MSB vibes and gels really well, feels propulsive, but relaxed. But I tend to prefer more fluidity, time resolution, and smoother corners. Both are great, so it's just taste.

I think all bets are off with the new MA3i, though because the new power supply, clock, and analog circuit. Seems to be described as richer, tighter, and lower noise than the MA3.