dCS Bartok versus MBS Discrete DACs?

[Kingrex]

This is a bold statement with questionable technical claims which I will get to eventually. I will be a dissenting voice here; let me first start with listening impressions. I use my Yggy for CD playback, and I have heard diverse MSB DACs (Premier and Reference) in various settings elsewhere, on streaming or playing of local files.

I had first an original Yggy, then the second version of it (Analog 2) and now, since about 2 years, the Yggy LIM (Less is More), which is considerably better to my ears. Yet with any Yggy, soundstage had always been great in my room. Audiophiles who visited over the years, including vinyl fans, have consistently admired my soundstage and its depth. Before I had Yggys I had a Berkeley Alpha 2 DAC, and the Yggy does not shorten soundstage depth either in my room relative to that DAC (which as a delta sigma measures better in some respects).

This last summer a gear designer visited my room and he commented that he had never heard such spatiality from digital before (and he commented positively on reproduction of hall ambience as well, see below). So I seem to have something going on here, in my particular room. I also have the speaker drivers out from the front wall by more than 7 feet, which helps.

The Yggy is also very capable of portraying hall ambience, another low level signal for which you need great linearity. Recently I did actually think that the portrayal of hall ambience might be a bit exaggerated, with on some recordings a sonic glow illuminating the instruments from within further back on the stage in their interaction with the reverberant hall. Yet when last season I visited again Boston Symphony Hall for a number of concerts I was struck by hearing that there was that same kind of effect. I concluded that the Yggy, and my system, are astonishingly faithful in their capability of portraying hall ambience, something that, frankly, I had not expected to this extent.

As for MSB, I have not been struck by a significantly higher capability to extract finer detail from instrumental timbres, even though I have to admit I have never heard a comparison in my own system and room.I did hear better performance here and there elsewhere, but then my system caught up, recently with new speakers, and I heard the same level of inner detail with the Yggy (e.g., on the subtle fine structure of the sound of massed orchestral strings).

The only time I heard, in another system, a direct comparison between an Yggy (Analog 2 version) and an MSB (Reference DAC) it was clear that on complex orchestral music the MSB could unravel the different instruments and instrumental groups slightly better. Yet that shows a weakness of the Yggy Analog 2 (and the original version). As I was able to establish with a comparison in my own system, the LIM version that I now have also separates instruments better than the Analog 2 and presumably is more like MSB in that respect. It is super clean where the Analog 2 congeals and even slightly distorts.

Whenever I heard an MSB DAC it was not in a setting with great soundstage depth, so I have no direct comparison between MSB and Yggy LIM on that front. I only know that in my system and room I have significantly better soundstage depth than in the settings where I heard an MSB.

There was only one exception where an MSB came at least relatively close on spatial depth in another room. The owner had found by measurement that the powerbase of his Reference DAC emitted a strong electromagnetic field. He then physically separated the DAC from the powerbase instead of stacking them (MSB themselves don't indicate that stacking is bad), and the soundstage went from relatively flat to much deeper, with better hall ambience as well. Apparently the field emitted from the powerbase had messed with low level signal processing from the DAC.

All in all, so far I have heard nothing from an MSB performance that would entice me to give it a try in my own system and room, also given the to me prohibitive cost. I don't see why I should spend so much money on a DAC if the benefits are not glaringly obvious to me. I do spend money where it counts. The $ 2K Yggy feeds into a $ 15K preamp, and sonically it makes complete sense. The Yggy is that good.

I do have to say that I am pampering my Yggy quite a bit. I have it on a great power cord (ZenWave PL-11) that costs more than half of the DAC itself and makes a good difference. The AES/EBU cable from MIT that connects the Mutec reclocker between CD transport and DAC to the DAC is almost as expensive as the DAC itself. It too makes a difference. As for the reclocker itself: Like so many DAC manufacturers, Schiit claims that the internal clock very well corrects any incoming jitter. That is not true. The less jitter your source has and/or the more you correct incoming jitter via reclocking, the better the DAC performs. The reclocker also renders reproduction of hall ambience more robust and convincing than when it is omitted from the chain. For my playback chain, see my signature.

As for digital noise from computer audio (which I don't use), the Yggy is sensitive as well. Also, the original Yggy had a so-called USB 3 input which, as later reported, clearly was a weak link (my first Yggy in 2017 already had a USB 5 input, current version is USB Unison). All early Yggy reviews and comparisons that used the USB 3 input can be dismissed as irrelevant, that input was no good (unlike the AES/EBU input, for example).

Now to the technical points:
The statement that the original Yggy uses a 16-bit R2R DAC is not true. It's a 20-bit R2R DAC chip. However, the LIM version that I have does use a 16-bit chip (with use of dither). It still sounds better. Mike Moffat specifically looks for high linearity of DAC chips, which is one reason he does not use regular audio chips but industrial precision chips. The ones he uses have very good INL and DNL numbers; he says those of typical audio R2R DAC chips are so bad that the manufacturer does not list them (I have checked a few classic audio R2R DAC chips for that; the data sheets indeed mention nothing on those numbers). As for the MSB digital filtering being superior, that may be debatable. The Yggy does *not* use off the shelf filtering either, but a proprietary algorithm that Moffat developed in collaboration with a math professor who solved a "divide by zero" problem posed by wanting to optimize for both timing and frequency response (he describes it in the Schiit book from a few years back). The filtering algorithm runs on SHARC processors.

***

So yeah, my experiences of low-level linearity with the Yggy are different from yours, but it may well be that I run mine under more optimal conditions than what you have heard. And it's a different version, too (the DAC card can be changed from the original for $ 550).

Rather than changing the DAC, I am much more interested in improving the signal upstream further with an external 10 MHz clock for the Mutec reclocker.

Only then might I think about another DAC. Yet rather than MSB I would be thinking about trying the new MIB (More is Better) version of the Yggy, which is supposed to be yet better than the LIM version (I could also upgrade for a lower price via upgrade of the DAC card). Yet this is low priority for me; first some acoustic changes for my room and the external clock.

I hear Schiit is good. And I'm a bit tired of exacerbated claims and brand name bias surrounding products like MSB. Especially in the entry to lower level. Maybe their best is great due to actual quality parts and design. But if your looking at more entry level products, I believe your better off getting a top level product from a less expensive manufacturer.

 

[ecwl]

Yet rather than MSB I would be thinking about trying the new MIB (More is Better) version of the Yggy, which is supposed to be yet better than the LIM version (I could also upgrade for a lower price via upgrade of the DAC card).

I actually agree with this. I think OP would get more bang for the buck upgrading to Yggy MIB from the original Yggy just based on the technical merits alone. And I’m not sure how big a difference there would be between Yggy MIB vs MSB Discrete. Since I haven’t heard the Yggy MIB. And even if MSB Discrete is better, is it “worth” the sonic difference is another question. Ideally, one should demo and then decide.

 

[shawnf]

Thanks, Ian.

The softness of the MA3 is a consistent comment across reviewers and users. It's the main reason that I have been focusing on the dCS and MSB.

I suppose the question is how does the new MA3i sound, and have all the changes addressed this? I have not heard of anyone's feedback on it. It's not clear that a MA3 can be ugraded but I have asked Meitner.

I really appreciate all the highly expert insights here from you, Al, Shawn, Lee, et al. Your comments are highly valuable are worth more than a dozen reviewers!

A Bartok Apex is out of budget unfortunately, so I will have to focus on the Meitner and the MSB.

@Alpha121 Just to add to what @ecwl already said about the sound signature of the Schitt sounding closer to the Discrete than to the DCS Bartok non-Apex. Perhaps I should share what I did that prevented me from overspending to get the kind of improvements I wanted from my own Premier DAC.

Perhaps to start, here are the things that I didn't do:

- I didn't spend megabucks on the Premier Powerbase because in my system the return of investment was very low
- I didn't buy a megabucks DDC like the Premier Digital Director, or external clock because of the reasons above. Plus also my network transport was already pretty good and I DID NOT WANT more cables, cables, cables and additional components all over my already crowded listening area.

What I did:
- I looked at alternative ways to improve the sound quality, namely grounding and isolation. I discovered that if I could further effectively ground/isolate my transport, there were really audible improvements to be had further up the chain
- So I looked at signal grounding. Extensively demoed a CAD USB isolator and extremely happy with the results. I coupled that by grounding the spare LAN port of my Antipodes with a Futrutech LAN noise isolator which yielded even darker backgrounds, micro details and holographic soundstage without sacrificing on tone and timbre
- A Shunyata Venom power cord to bring down the noise going into my transport
- Also bought a cheap used wellfloat isolation platform for the Antipodes but this upgrade I was less sure than the above 3 upgrades, which incrementally improved on the sound. Again YMMV.

So you could potentially go 1 of 2 ways:

Scenario 1: Stay with the Schitt and focus on grounding or isolating your DCS transport.
Pros
- Cost effective compared to upgrading to an entirely new DAC even with a trade in discount
- IMMEDIATE audible improvements. Especially on the signal grounding upgrades, the change in sound quality immediately noticeable in my system
- LOW RISK - because CAD and Furutech distributors in US will almost always offer a extended home demo or 30 day money back guarantee
- NOT DAMAGING or overly altering the tone or timbre of your DAC. So if you love the Schitt sound, it is a strong likelihood you will continue to enjoy it even more
- MIGRATING the components is easy. If you decide to decouple from your transport or DAC, you can bring these small, inert components along into your new ecosystem and the new system will reap the benefits as well

Scenario 2: You upgrade to either an MSB or DCS DAC and you stay with the DCS Network Bridge
Pros
- All the pros that everyone has shared with you earlier
- With both MSB and DCS DACs, you have option to word sync from transport to DAC without additional external clock or DDC. Less cables and components means a less cluttered listening room
- if you invest in an MSB DAC, you can continue to improve the MSB sound at a lower cost by upgrading to Revelation Audio Umbilicals. Or go for broke and upgrade to powerbase if you decide to do so at some point in the future
Cons
- Hefty cost investment upfront compared to Scenario 1
- In the MSB context, even if you word sync transport to DAC, it will be still slightly inferior than using the Pro ISL interface

Lastly, you might want to consider demoing the Vera Fi's Swiss Digital Fuse Box for both your DAC and transport. Quite a few people have been raving about on these forums. Desperately wanted to try but still a bit hesitant as it involves swapping the fuse of the component - not a straight plug and play.

Again IMHO and YMMV. Like what the others said, extended home demo is the way to go so you know how it sounds in your system.

 

[Ian B]

Thanks, Ian.

The softness of the MA3 is a consistent comment across reviewers and users. It's the main reason that I have been focusing on the dCS and MSB.

I suppose the question is how does the new MA3i sound, and have all the changes addressed this? I have not heard of anyone's feedback on it. It's not clear that a MA3 can be ugraded but I have asked Meitner.

I really appreciate all the highly expert insights here from you, Al, Shawn, Lee, et al. Your comments are highly valuable are worth more than a dozen reviewers!

A Bartok Apex is out of budget unfortunately, so I will have to focus on the Meitner and the MSB.

I think it is likely the MA3 can be upgraded as the are doing DA2i upgrades for the DA2v2 (that's where mine is right now), and these are sort of parallel products at different price points.

Definitely worth hearing if you can, but you can't go wrong with MSB. I just tend to prefer the one-bit DAC sound, they seem a bit faster and smoother to my taste. MSB Discrete in contrast is warm and "chunky".

 

[Alsatian]

I think it is likely the MA3 can be upgraded as the are doing DA2i upgrades for the DA2v2 (that's where mine is right now), and these are sort of parallel products at different price points.

Definitely worth hearing if you can, but you can't go wrong with MSB. I just tend to prefer the one-bit DAC sound, they seem a bit faster and smoother to my taste. MSB Discrete in contrast is warm and "chunky".

I checked the Meitner website and they directed me to the distributor who was very responsive. The distributor in turn directed me to my local dealer who will be handling the upgrade. Cost is $3500 and requires a trip to the factory in Calgary Ontario. They have a waiting list and said that it won’t be too long before they give me a return authorization number to start the upgrade. It sounds like they’re waiting for a final.Roon certification.

 

[Alpha121]

Wow. $3,500 is pretty expensive for the upgrade and is definitely on the bubble.

Sorry if this offends anybody.

 

[Ian B]

Wow. $3,500 is pretty expensive for the upgrade and is definitely on the bubble.

Sorry if this offends anybody.

I mean they basically replace everything in there.

 

[Alpha121]

I mean they basically replace everything in there.

Well, you are 100% right about that, it's a total change out. There is probably $2,500 in boards, chips and parts even without labor.

I only wish I knew what it sounded like, or had some review.

 

[Ian B]

Well, you are 100% right about that, it's a total change out. There is probably $2,500 in boards, chips and parts even without labor.

I only wish I knew what it sounded like, or had some review.

We are flying blind at the moment for the MA3i, but there are a lot of MA3s in the field. I can let you know how my DA2i upgrade goes, as it should be a similar change.

 

[Alpha121]

Does anybody here know how the dCS Bartok APEX compares to the Chord DAVE with or without an upscaler?

My research has led away from the MBS Discrete to the DAVE, with strong viewpoints on the M-Scaler as a way to expand the soundstage.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

FWIW as a data point...in my experience, the deconstructed DAVE (external SJ ps, cap board, D2D USB by-pass) was about level with the MSB Premiere. Different sound, but a parallel move.

I purchased the MSB Reference which to me was superior to the DAVE set-up. I had an HMS w/DAVE in the past, but moved to solo/deconstructed DAVE instead. I still use that in a second system, driving active speakers. It's very nice.

 

[Ian B]

Does anybody here know how the dCS Bartok APEX compares to the Chord DAVE with or without an upscaler?

My research has led away from the MBS Discrete to the DAVE, with strong viewpoints on the M-Scaler as a way to expand the soundstage.

I've not liked Chord stuff I've used. Kind of goes farther than DCS into the cold and digital side of things. Though, more dynamic than DCS house sound.

 

[itay123]

had Both for a long DEMO

Had the MSB discrete for a long DEMO once with a single power supply and the second time with a pair of power supplies and I also had the DCS Bartok for trial and testing

The MSB By far sounded right to my ears, with a natural, harmonious and musical timbre, with excellent control and soft and natural edges.

The DCS sounded thin, two-dimensional, overly detailed with a contour around the instruments, and I heard this also at my friend's setup.

 

[Ian B]

Thanks, Ian.

The softness of the MA3 is a consistent comment across reviewers and users. It's the main reason that I have been focusing on the dCS and MSB.

I suppose the question is how does the new MA3i sound, and have all the changes addressed this? I have not heard of anyone's feedback on it. It's not clear that a MA3 can be ugraded but I have asked Meitner.

I really appreciate all the highly expert insights here from you, Al, Shawn, Lee, et al. Your comments are highly valuable are worth more than a dozen reviewers!

A Bartok Apex is out of budget unfortunately, so I will have to focus on the Meitner and the MSB.

I can't generalize to the MA3i, but I have the DA2i here now and softness is NOT a problem. Imaging and 3D space is incredible.

 

[Al M.]

I've not liked Chord stuff I've used. Kind of goes farther than DCS into the cold and digital side of things. Though, more dynamic than DCS house sound.

As an aside, a sound with a brighter, thinner tonal balance, with perhaps on top of that more pronounced transient edges, can seem more dynamic than a fuller, warmer sound.

Perceived dynamics cannot be entirely divorced from overall tonal character. Not that this necessarily applies here, just an observation.

 

[Ian B]

As an aside, a sound with a brighter, thinner tonal balance, with perhaps on top of that more pronounced transient edges, can seem more dynamic than a fuller, warmer sound.

Perceived dynamics cannot be entirely divorced from overall tonal character. Not that this necessarily applies here, just an observation.

This seems right.

 

[Genesis168]

Hi guys, I received my Meitner MA3i today. I was a previous MA3 owner. The 3i is a much improved sounding dac compared to the 3. Gone is the little bit of “softness” associated to it. It’s got better rhythm and pace in the music, cleaner sound and a much improved tighter bass. This is just my first impression. Will post a little more after a few days.

 

[Genesis168]

I left the MA3i playing and went back to to have a better listen after 5 hours. All I can say is this dac is a huge step over the model it replaced. It’s really well balanced. Same big huge sound but way more nuanced. Once I have it run in I will take it to a friends place who owns a DCS Bartok.

 

[Ian B]

I left the MA3i playing and went back to to have a better listen after 5 hours. All I can say is this dac is a huge step over the model it replaced. It’s really well balanced. Same big huge sound but way more nuanced. Once I have it run in I will take it to a friends place who owns a DCS Bartok.

This doesn't surprise me. Obviously, not the same DAC, but the DA2i is turning out to be mind boggling in how well it images/resolves, and how spacious and layered it sounds, but also how solid and punchy it sounds compared to the DA2.

 

[Genesis168]

I have the DA2i in my main system. Yes it’s in a different league. You hear things you never knew existed. I’m an analog guy as you can see and saying this about digital speaks volumes about these DACs