MSB Diamond DAC IV Reviewed By Stereophile

[asiufy]

I also found that DSD through the MSB to be noticeably better than PCM. More enjoyable, really. The reason why, I don't know... It just is
CK Keung, if you could open both units and take a few pics, it'd be great
I was told there wasn't much changed going from IV to IV Plus, so I'd like to see what exactly was changed. The DAC modules are interchangeable, so at least that didn't change. Maybe the analog stage...


alexandre

 

[Orb]

Hi Orb,

I replaced my MSB IV dac with the new IV Plus a month ago.

I did a direct comparison : IV Plus vs IV vs IV Signature. All of them were with the Signature Powerbase & a MSB Data 4 cd transport.

IV Plus KO the IV easily : quieter; more solid images within the soundstage; much more analog-like & musical sound.
IMHO the IV Plus is on par with the older IV Signature that doesn't have Femto/Galaxy clock.

I can image that the IV with the add-on Galaxy clock will be even better.

Thanks for the info as really useful.
I wonder why MC and his guests had a preference for the DAC IV without the Galaxy clock.
Were you using just USB (both DSD and PCM) or also S/PDIF for PCM?
I need to go back and find his review just to see how they had it setup.
Thanks again
Orb

 

[CKKeung]

I also found that DSD through the MSB to be noticeably better than PCM. More enjoyable, really. The reason why, I don't know... It just is
CK Keung, if you could open both units and take a few pics, it'd be great
I was told there wasn't much changed going from IV to IV Plus, so I'd like to see what exactly was changed. The DAC modules are interchangeable, so at least that didn't change. Maybe the analog stage...


alexandre

Hi alexandre,

I did open my IV Plus up when installing the USB add-on option.
The new changes are :
1. A new software code - Rev 4.3.0
2. The red box of Femto140 clock
3. The network card onboard is ProI2S so the motherboard has a new revision number too.
4. The top plate is without ventilation holes.

The analog stage is exact the same. This is the reason why it's a Plus edition but not labeled as MSB V dac.

Cheers,
CK

 

[CKKeung]

Thanks for the info as really useful.
I wonder why MC and his guests had a preference for the DAC IV without the Galaxy clock.
Were you using just USB (both DSD and PCM) or also S/PDIF for PCM?
I need to go back and find his review just to see how they had it setup.
Thanks again
Orb

Hi Orb,

I also wonder why MC has such comments. He has golden ears & the reviews are accurate all along.
But my personal comparison and those done by friends in other systems reveal that IV Plus is markedly better.

Yes, I am using my IV Plus both via USB & S/PDIF.

BTW MSB IV & IV Plus can accept DSD signal not only via USB & MSB Network but also their other digital inputs (coaxial, AES, BNC).
My CAS has HQPlayer as playback software and can export DSD digital signal to my IV Plus via the coaxial digital output of an Asus Xonar soundcard!

 

[CKKeung]

MSB IV Plus : internal Femto140 vs external Antelope Audio Trinty+10M clock combo

I did a very interesting shootout last night : my MSB IV Plus with internal Femto140 vs my friend's MSB IV with external Antelope Audio Trinty+10M clock combo.
4 of the 5 attendants are MSB dac users.
The Trinity & 10M are connected by Stereolab XV Ultra Ref clock cables.
We used redbook CD, 16/44.1 files, high resolution PCM files & also DSD files for the comparison.
The net price of Trinity+10M in Hong Kong is about USD9.5k.
The MRSP of Femto140 clock add-on option is USD5k.

The conclusion is not unexpected : We get what we paid for.
They are close but Antelope Audio flagship combo still won, particularly in term of musicality whereas the Femto140 is a bit too 'hifi'.

However, I have no regret of owning the latter: price is more approachable; using 2 clock cables & 2 powercords less; less rack space needed.
And I am thinking about getting the coming MSB UMT Plus which can communicate with IV Plus by the bidirectional ProI2S network.

 

[edorr]

Thanks for the info as really useful.
I wonder why MC and his guests had a preference for the DAC IV without the Galaxy clock.
Were you using just USB (both DSD and PCM) or also S/PDIF for PCM?
I need to go back and find his review just to see how they had it setup.
Thanks again
Orb

I asked Vince about this review and he suggested something was probably wrong with the power supplied to the "oven" that houses the clock, and MSB never got to chance to investigate. I would agree that if you review a $10K option that everyone on the planet appears to love, and you are getting a completely unexpected and different outcome, you should validate your setup with the manufacturer before putting in print your negative conclusion about the mod.

In any event, I just did a little bit of critical listening to the Femto clock, and here are my observations:
Not a stepchange that takes your system to another level and makes your system sans clock unlistenable, but a very nice improvement on an already phenomenal DAC.

I hear more detail in the high frequencies, in particular cymbals (Stanley Clark, Jazz in the Garden)
Vocals are more natural, warmer and organic (Eva Cassidy, Live at BLues Alley). This was even more pronounced on a very old (70s) live Dutch recording I played (Herman van Veen, Carre).
Placement of instruments changes - improved imaging. Instrument that I presume were recorded in the center are moving to the center, without shrinking of the overall soundstage (Making Music, Zakir Hussein).

Overall, money well spend to take an already high end system up another notch or two.

Note: According to MSB, to fully appreciate the impact of the clock you need to listen to complex (e.g. orchestral) music, preferable at high volume levels. I simply never listen to such music on my 2 channel system (give or take a piano sonata or two, all my clasical listening is on my multi channel system). On 2 channel, I listen to small ensemble acoustic music only. So the the more "transformative" change of inserting the clock could happen with the type of material suggested by MSB.

 

[Orb]

Edorr,
thing is MC did mention there was aspects which some would appreciate as improvement, but for his preference and those who listened it lost what they liked with the default DAC IV.
So if there is a problem, I guess the improvements they heard should also not be there then as well - a manufacturer cannot have it both ways tbh.
On top of that, they are happy with the result and review of the DAC IV earlier, but there is a fault when the review is more neutral-negative with one specific component upgrade inside same unit, would need quite a co-incidence for a fault to be that specific although I appreciate it is possible without affecting the performance of it in other ways (slight I would say considering results of measurements were I understand fine).

Cheers
Orb

 

[edorr]

Edorr,
thing is MC did mention there was aspects which some would appreciate as improvement, but for his preference and those who listened it lost what they liked with the default DAC IV.
So if there is a problem, I guess the improvements they heard should also not be there then as well - a manufacturer cannot have it both ways tbh.
On top of that, they are happy with the result and review of the DAC IV earlier, but there is a fault when the review is more neutral-negative with one specific component upgrade inside same unit, would need quite a co-incidence for a fault to be that specific although I appreciate it is possible without affecting the performance of it in other ways (slight I would say considering results of measurements were I understand fine).

Cheers
Orb

I disagree. If everyone trying the clock is unanimously positive about its impact on sonics, and one unique panel of listeners is not, it is at least conceivable something is wrong with the setup that panel is listening to. Even if to that panel some aspects of sonics have improved. Unfortunately we will never know.

MSB should offer up a certified DAC IV to HifiCritic with Galaxy clock and ask them to repeat the comparison with and without clock using this hardware. If this article was available for download and spread on the internet they probably would have.

 

[Orb]

Unfortunately seems we are discussing a review that only a few of us have at hand.
On the positive MC mentions delivers a bolder , "higher definition" sound that's firmer, has greater contrasts and is more delicately drawn, with almost total control over grain and sibilant "edge".
MC also mentions how the bass-mid-treble also perceived substantially spruced up and polished.

On the negative MC mentions the overall result seemed less unified, and in a musical sense, less flowing, less naturally rythmic, and perhaps a bit larger than life.
MC goes on to mention how it seemed to alter image perspectives and musical dynamics, going on to say: and this aspect of its "character" was not necessarily preferred by the team.

The lengthy time of review-audition looks to me it was dedicated to S/PDIF and listening at 44.1 and also 24/192 PCM.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

I disagree. If everyone trying the clock is unanimously positive about its impact on sonics, and one unique panel of listeners is not, it is at least conceivable something is wrong with the setup that panel is listening to. Even if to that panel some aspects of sonics have improved. Unfortunately we will never know.

MSB should offer up a certified DAC IV to HifiCritic with Galaxy clock and ask them to repeat the comparison with and without clock using this hardware. If this article was available for download and spread on the internet they probably would have.

Yeah that is true the problem is one that cannot be answered to a satisfactory level and appreciate some may find it frustrating.

The problem if trying to continue with a new unit this would then invalidate the previous glowing review with said product and their experience of the MSB involving many months which was very positive and said reviews already out there and read so now does HifCritic post a retraction saying it must be a failed unit and ignore the glowing review -being cheeky more than serious but is a consideration and headache as it is probably as bad to say the unit failed.

Personally though (and yes this my own opinion) it is a bit of a fetch to accept that an upgrade clock circuit can be compromised relating to power regulation/power provided to said circuit without causing any effect on the very glowing review of the DAC IV, nor affect any measurements or the existing clock circuit (which I assume would be integral in some way to the upgrade clock circuit).
Anyway this aside, I have quoted some more of the review, if the clock was really that compromised it would had behaved very different to what was perceived.

By your argument one could say high rez PCM is wrong as so many love DSD, even when those prefer DSD over the identical PCM and both came from DXD (PCM based) - take 2L high rez releases that can be downloaded for demo.
Cheers
Orb

 

[CKKeung]

DAC IV Plus reviewed by MC

Unfortunately seems we are discussing a review that only a few of us have at hand.
On the positive MC mentions delivers a bolder , "higher definition" sound that's firmer, has greater contrasts and is more delicately drawn, with almost total control over grain and sibilant "edge".
MC also mentions how the bass-mid-treble also perceived substantially spruced up and polished.

On the negative MC mentions the overall result seemed less unified, and in a musical sense, less flowing, less naturally rythmic, and perhaps a bit larger than life.
MC goes on to mention how it seemed to alter image perspectives and musical dynamics, going on to say: and this aspect of its "character" was not necessarily preferred by the team.

The lengthy time of review-audition looks to me it was dedicated to S/PDIF and listening at 44.1 and also 24/192 PCM.

Cheers
Orb

Hi Orb & Edorr,

Did MC mention in the review which digital filters were used during his audition?

When I did the shootout of IV vs IV Plus yesterday, I noticed that the choice of digital filter affected the sound a lot.

 

[Orb]

Hi Orb & Edorr,

Did MC mention in the review which digital filters were used during his audition?

When I did the shootout of IV vs IV Plus yesterday, I noticed that the choice of digital filter affected the sound a lot.

That is a good question, need to go through all the MSB articles they did to know what they settled on, wonder if anyone emailed them on this query.
Cheers
Orb

 

[edorr]

The problem is Edorr this would then invalidate the previous glowing review with said product and their experience of the MSB involving many months which was very positive and said reviews already out there and read so now does HifCritic post a retraction saying it must be a failed unit and ignore the glowing review
It is a bit of a fetch to accept that an upgrade clock circuit can be compromised relating to power regulation/power provided to said circuit without causing any effect on the very glowing review of the DAC IV, nor affect any measurements or the existing clock circuit (which I assume would be integral in some way to the upgrade clock circuit).
Anyway this aside, I have quoted some more of the review, if the clock was really that compromised it would had behaved very different to what was perceived.

By your argument one could say high rez PCM is wrong as so many love DSD, even when those prefer DSD over the identical PCM and both came from DXD (PCM based) - take 2L high rez releases that can be downloaded for demo.
Cheers
Orb

The clock has its own source of power, if the power supplied to the DAC was fine, but power supplied to the clock was not, this may explain the outcome. Far fetched may be, but the changes that one single unique panel of listeners has a completely different set of preferences as a a group than every other panel or individual listeners on the planet (including our very own Bruce B. and overy other MSB owner posting on this forum) is equally, if not more far fetched.

I'm not ruling out the possibility, but it is unlikely. If other share the hificritic opinion speak up please!

 

[Orb]

That is possible Edorr,
usually though most DAC/CD players use multiple independent regulated lines for each section and would think the upgrade clock would share this with one of them.
An unknown whatever the reason and yeah I appreciate for some the frustration is this is now something that cannot be resolved to a satisfactory level.
1st though I would look at what CK says, has a good point on filter/sampling setting used and maybe there is an optimum setting regarding the clock.

CK please can you expand on your experience with the filters/sampling settings and impact on standard DAC IV vs one with clock.
Thanks
Orb

 

[edorr]

That is possible Edorr,
usually though most DAC/CD players use multiple independent regulated lines for each section and would think the upgrade clock would share this with one of them.
An unknown and yeah I appreciate for some the frustration is this is now something that cannot be resolved to a satisfactory level.
1st though I would look at what CK says, has a good point on filter/sampling setting used.
Cheers
Orb

We have two highly implausible scenario's:

(1) Something was wrong with power supplied to the clock
(2) One unique panel of observers has different sonic preference than all other observers on the planet

A third possibility is

(3) "all audiophiles are screwed up" and all subjective listening sessions are fatally flawed by groupthink, and expectation bias.

Have your pick. To me, scenario (2) is the least likely.

 

[CKKeung]

That is possible Edorr,
usually though most DAC/CD players use multiple independent regulated lines for each section and would think the upgrade clock would share this with one of them.
An unknown whatever the reason and yeah I appreciate for some the frustration is this is now something that cannot be resolved to a satisfactory level.
1st though I would look at what CK says, has a good point on filter/sampling setting used and maybe there is an optimum setting regarding the clock.

CK please can you expand on your experience with the filters/sampling settings and impact on standard DAC IV vs one with clock.
Thanks
Orb

Hi Orb,

The digital filter included with my IV Plus is the 32X Filter. The add-on Upsampling/Filter Suite option contains 3 other filters : 16X; Lanczos; Minimum Phase.
IMHO the 32X is relatively 'hifi' whereas the Minimum Phase is most musical with better cohesion & flow.

Other settings that will affect the MSB dac sonic character are : whether upsamling is engaged or not and whether the ground is lifted or not.
I don't have the MC reviews in hand but I guess these details are not mentioned in the reviews.

 

[Orb]

The filters are not mentioned regarding the Galaxy clock, but their long term testing of the DACIV was done with the add-on/upgrade filter package.
Reading the forum looks like MC prefers the DAC IV set to non-upsampled and standard filter but this does mean they tried various settings over I think 4-6 months, I remember they mention liking minimum phase as well.
However this is more applicable to the DAC IV testing/review rather than the clock upgrade that unfortunately has no mention of settings.

What was your preference for settings when using the clock
Cheers
Orb

 

[CKKeung]

The filters are not mentioned regarding the Galaxy clock, but their long term testing of the DACIV was done with the add-on/upgrade filter package.
Reading the forum looks like MC prefers the DAC IV set to non-upsampled and standard filter but this does mean they tried various settings over I think 4-6 months, I remember they mention liking minimum phase as well.
However this is more applicable to the DAC IV testing/review rather than the clock upgrade that unfortunately has no mention of settings.

What was your preference for settings when using the clock
Cheers
Orb

My personal preference is no upsampling and the minimum phase filter.

BTW I will later share with you how I have tweaked my MSB dac in this thread.

Cheers,
CK

 

[LL21]

My personal preference is no upsampling and the minimum phase filter.

BTW I will later share with you how I have tweaked my MSB dac with you in this thread.

Cheers,
CK

I think that is how MC preferred the MSB DAC as well in the review.

 

[edorr]

According to MSB, to fully appreciate the impact of the clock you need to listen to complex (e.g. orchestral) music, preferable at high volume levels. I simply never listen to such music on my 2 channel system (give or take a piano sonata or two, all my clasical listening is on my multi channel system). On 2 channel, I listen to small ensemble acoustic music only. So the the more "transformative" change of inserting the clock could happen with the type of material suggested by MSB.

Vince @ MSB asked me to correct this statement. While the improvement of the clock is most evident in "dense" and complex music, playing at "high volume levels" is not a requirement. Also, I have been spending a bit more time with the clock (still have not played any complex and "dense" music yet), and my initial conclusions still stand. For me the improved timbre and naturalness of vocals is the most compelling improvement.