[Foolish Pleasure]

They just began shipping the Musical Fidelity M1 DAC.  I’m eager to hear how the M1 sounds and how it compares to other high end DACS.  I’m also puzzled as to why the unit appears not to be configured a little better for computer audio.

I was delighted to read the reviews of the MF V-DAC @ $300.  “Sweet” is not a term you often hear applied to digital audio and it struck me as a great toy.  I’m currently using the Sonic Frontiers CD transport and a Monarchy DAC (dual Burr Browns) from the early 90s.  What better upgrade?  But then I read the descriptions of the MF M1 for $650, “the fruit of our 23 years experience of making top performance DACs.”  Hey, I thought, I’ll wait for that one.  It will sound better with my existing CD library and I’ll gain an entree to the computer audio world of the future.

But there appears to be a problem.  As already described elsewhere, the USB connection in the M1 will limit an original recording done at 24/192, downloaded from the computer, to 16/48, and then upsample it again in the DAC to 24/192.
Digital Inputs:
   1x XLR AES/EBU Balanced
   1x RCA Coaxial SPDIF (From 32 to 192 kHz @ 16 to 24 bit PCM)
   1x TOSLINK (From 32 to 96 kHz @ 16 to 24 bit PCM)
   1x USB B-Bus connector (32 to 48 kbps @ 16 Bit)

I am no expert in this area; please correct me if I’m going wrong, but it seems like there’d be lost information and an awful lot of computations to be done in real time.  An audio engineer of my acquaintance feels that this has resulted in brightness and hardness from those DACs (presently established in the market) that try it, even those that use the best algorithms.  He further points out that with most consumer USB DACs, the master digital clock is in the computer, whereas with a Firewire connection, the clock is in the DAC – leading to fewer errors.

I hasten to add that all consumer level DACS I’ve come across use this extra conversion step from the USB port – and none that I can find use Firewire, which can handle the signal unrestricted.  I can only find professional A/D–D/A units like the highly regarded Metric Halo UNLA-8 @ $6k, that have Firewire – and you need a Mac system.  Of course, for home listening you’d be throwing away 2/3rds of the unit’s functions for your $6k.

1)   So I hope the Musical Fidelity M1 sounds fantastic with your existing library of redbook CDs.  Please give us your reports ASAP.

2)   It doesn’t seem a totally comprehensive solution as a bridge between old and new digital sources.  Again, please tell me if I’m misinterpreting the specs and applications.
 

PS:  I e-mailed the US distributor for the M1 (couldn’t find the UK address), asking for clarification of that USB issue, and inquiring whether an upgrade was planned or discussed.  I even stated I would have paid more for a model with a 24/192 USB capable connection.  No reply.

[srb]

Musical Fidelity is not the only manufacturer with a new DAC that has not addressed high resolution capability for the USB input.  There were a number of new DACs released both last year and this year that continued to employ a standard TI PCM2704 16bit/48KHz USB receiver chip or equivalent.
 
If the sound of one of these new DACs strikes your fancy (and it also has an S/PDIF input), you can add one of a number of available USB to S/PDIF converters that will accept up to 24bit/96KHz or 24bit/192KHz, which many AudioCircle users have done.  Here are a few that sell for $150 to $480, so you would want to factor that cost into your decision:
 
M2Tech HiFace (24/192) - $150
M2Tech Evo (24/192) - $480
Bel Canto USB Link 24/96 - $250
Stello U2 (24/96) - $350
 
There are a few threads here on AudioCircle about the M2Tech HiFace, which is probably the most economical adapter available.  You can also find additional information at computeraudiophile.com.
 
Steve

[Foolish Pleasure]

Thanks to SRB for putting me more in the picture.  It’s just that I’m not completely happy with the choices.  Admittedly, I’ve arrived at this issue a little late for the vanguard, but I know 90% of high-enders haven’t gotten there either.  They’re going to have to get educated and make purchasing decisions.

At heart, buying a new DAC is a strategic decision for upgrading your system.  One needs to take into account, your library of recordings, cost effectiveness, flexibility in handling formats, and of course, sound.  You want something that will fully bridge the old and new audio worlds.  If USB at 24/192 is to be the standard, then let’s implement it in one box (the DAC).  If there are practical problems with that, let’s do Firewire.  The professional audio world does.  [Why was Firewire not implemented at the start?]

I’m tantalized with the prospect of high-resolution music on line.  I come in out of the cold, survey the market with a view toward a purchase, and find that I have to purchase a two chassis solution if I want a near state-of-the-art DAC.  That rankles a bit, ‘cause it’s sure to bring other problems, increase cost, and itself be out of date in a couple of years.

Solutions: 1) Come back in a couple of years; 2) Buy something like a V-DAC at low cost to improve the sound of your redbook CD collection and look into computer audio later; 3) Get something like the M1 + a USB to S/PDIF converter and deal with the cost and the problems.  None of these are fully acceptable.

It would seem that home audio DAC manufacturers could add USB at 24/192 or Firewire for not too much money – say $100.  It would seem like a manufacturer like Metric Halo could produce a playback only box, identical to the ULN-8, for about two thirds less than the $6k retail.

Finally, I don’t mean to pick on Musical Fidelity.  I haven’t owned one, but I’m very familiar with the sound of their products and have read the laudatory reviews, all of which have pointed to the sweet and natural “house sound.”  I guess I’m just stymied that the M1 solution (as well as others) doesn’t tie in all the loose ends.

[firedog]

For now, the DACs which do "proper" USB input above 96K are few and far between. I believe it still demands proprietary drivers, which I'd guess a lot of Audio manufacturers don't want to deal with. So the cost to them is more than you think, and demands expertise they don't have (unless they license drivers from someone else). As the demand for hi-res computer audio is still small, I think MF and other producers have decided that adding the technology to relatively inexpensive devices is not worthwhile. In order to keep the price of their DACs down, they don't include such a solution. From their point of view they are probably right, and only the higher end more expnesive DACs have the capability you are talking about.

The M2Tech Hiface is a very good sounding solution which is "inexpensive" compared to many other solutions. Other than the additional cost, I don't see it as having any real "problems". I'm not sure why you think it will be "out of date" in a few years. In this respect it is no different than any other solution, including some of the expensive "one-box" solutions. What problems are you thinking of?

If the MF DAC ends up being a good solution for you and the only stumbling block is the USB hi-res input, I'd definitely think about adding a Hiface  to it. Your other options for  all hi-res frequencies fully integrated into your USB DAC are limited to more expensive devices than the MF. ( You could of course buy one of these on the used market for much less than MSRP.)

The Hiface and some of the other USB solutions with proprietary drivers avoid the "computer clock problem" your engineer friend mentioned. The Hiface has it's own clocks (pretty good ones), and you can set it up to control the audio stream, so that the computer's internal clocks (and even all the audio processing by the PC) are bypassed. That's one of the reasons it sounds good and that's the main reason the advanced USB solutions use proprietary drivers.

So the idea that you have to have Firewire to avoid the "extra conversion" isn't correct. I'd mention some of the other consumer oriented USB DACs in this category but they tend to cost $3000 MSRP and up, and it doesn't sound like that's in your price range. Hence my "shill" for the Hiface - it solves the problem for a reasonable price.

Metric Halo's and their software are designed to be used with MACs, so they have Firewire. Firewire and MAC are typical in the pro audio world, but your typical Laptop/PC in the consumer/Windows world doesn't include Firewire; so I think it isn't considered a such a "practical" solution by many consumer oriented producers. Metric Halo is producing for the pro market, MF for the home market. The needs and desires of the two markets are very different, and the marketing of the Hardware itself is also very different.  So companies don't necessarily jump from one market to the other just to produce something that seems to make sense to you.

Just as you seem to have resistance to using a USB adapter and want a "one-box" solution (nothing wrong with your preferences, of course), others might resist having to add Firewire to their PC/Laptop. For them this is also adding "an extra box".

Again the context of this is the present world: very small demand for hi-res files at all, especially anything above 96k. The demand for 176 and 192k is miniscule today. USB is found on every Windows PC made nowadays,  even the least expensive ones. So there is little market justification for the "comprehensive" solution you seem to think makes the most sense. As a result, it's found only at the high end, where price is less of a factor.

The bottom line is that if you will accept only a one box solution, you aren't going to find it at the price you're talking about.

The other option for you might be the new hi-res HRT Music Streamer HD USB DAC which is due out soon. It is supposed to be able to handle all hi-res frequencies up to 24/192. It is a "one box" (or "one USB appliance" solution), but it will probably not be any (or much) cheaper than the MF + Hiface combo.

[Stu Pitt]

Musical Fidelity puts out their newest, latest, and greatest models every 6 months or so.  Somehow every product they launch is so much better than the one it replaced.  6 months go by, and they tell you how much better this one is than the last. 

I expect that from the budget, entry level stuff like NAD, Rotel, et al.  Not from an upscale company like Musical Fidelity.  Actually, those companies roll out new models far less often. 

Have you heard the V-DAC, or are you just going by reviews?   If you haven't heard it, don't believe the hype.  It's good for the money, but no giant killer by any means IMO. 

Then again, I'm not a fan of Musical Fidelity's house sound at all.  They should be called Musical Fatality if you ask me.   Great in a hifi sense, but no musicality IMO. 

[Stu Pitt]

In my rambling, I forgot to make my point...

If you don't like the features on the M1, wait about 6 months after it's released.  The M2 or M3 will be ready for release by that time. 

[Foolish Pleasure]

Have you heard the V-DAC, or are you just going by reviews?   If you haven't heard it, don't believe the hype.  It's good for the money, but no giant killer by any means IMO.  ...  Great in a hifi sense, but no musicality IMO.

I was careful NOT to comment on sound since I have not heard either the V-DAC or the M1.  My posts mainly reflect the frustration of being ready and willing to enter the market of computer sound - but not being able to find a product that can fully implement all file sizes with USB connections (the apparent industry direction at present).

I suppose I'll have to use one of the USB to S/PDIF converters since the industry has no STANDARD yet.  We need either a 24/192 industry standard connection, or DACs that will handle any connection.

This has significance not only for audiophiles, but for an entire music industry in the midst of switching from discs to digital.  But that's another story.

[Stu Pitt]

I think the whole high res thing is a little over blown.  How many titles are available in true high res?  Of the few that are, most aren't mainstream titles.  High res isn't anywhere near being the recording standard.  Even if it were, the current recording and production quality won't do high res any favors.  What will those extra bits do, make the music louder?  The loudness war has to die and be buried for a while before high res will be worth it IMO.  Can you imagine Metallica's Death Magnetic bricked in high res?

Everyone gets hung up on DACs playing high res audio and digital files.  Where are the albums?

I'd love for high res and impeccable recording and production to become the standard.  Until that happens, I'm not going to dwell on my sources playing it.

[firedog]

I think the whole high res thing is a little over blown.  How many titles are available in true high res?  Of the few that are, most aren't mainstream titles.  High res isn't anywhere near being the recording standard.  Even if it were, the current recording and production quality won't do high res any favors.  What will those extra bits do, make the music louder?  The loudness war has to die and be buried for a while before high res will be worth it IMO.  Can you imagine Metallica's Death Magnetic bricked in high res?

Everyone gets hung up on DACs playing high res audio and digital files.  Where are the albums?

I'd love for high res and impeccable recording and production to become the standard.  Until that happens, I'm not going to dwell on my sources playing it.

There is a fair amount of hi-res material on the market, but most of it is Classical. You can put together a pretty decent Classical collection in 88k or 96k if that's your thing. There is some Jazz, Blues, and World types of music (not much), but very little Popular music or Classic 60s and 70's  rock music transferred to hi-res digital.  A few artists such as Neil Young and King Crimson have put 96k material out on DVD, and it can be ripped as hi-res files if one wishes. My results with these ripping these releases as hi-res have been excellent.

According to what I've read, recording and producing music in at least 96k is fairly common nowadays. The music is readied for market, and then only downsampled after production is  "done".  So there is a lot of material that could be marketed as hi-res; obviously the record companies don't see much money in it, or they'd be flogging "premium" hi-res releases for a premium price.

I agree that if the material is volume compressed, there is little point in releasing it as high res. It will only give us bigger headaches than the standard def volume compressed files do.

The Beatles did release their remasters in 24/44.1, and that sounds superior to the CD release. I've got a hunch that they will re-release the material in either 96 or 192k (the remasters were done in 24/192 and then downsampled), as soon as Apple feels there isn't much more money to be made from the present releases. That may spark the market for hi-res in popular music.

Most of the hi-res (96k) I own sounds very good, better than the redbook of the same material. I think it's a good listen on a high end system.  But I doubt there will ever be much of a market for 176 or 192k: there are very few systems capable of fully resolving it, and even fewer (if any) listeners that will be able to tell the difference between 96k and 192k files.

I have a DAC that can handle 192, and I understand why someone buying new hardware would want something that will play all possible formats. However, in a practical sense, I don't see much use for it, and if I knew my system was going to sound very good, but be limited to 96k files and below, it wouldn't bother me much.

[BobC]

I'm no expert...this stuff confuses me and I know a lot more than J6P...and I think thats the reason record companies don't mess with it.

When are we going to see audio only Blu-Rays?  To me that's the solution.  Clean break from CDs.  BR players are now common.  BR computer drives are now common.  Now just need BR players in cars and portable devices.  At that point, why even mess with a CD?

Buy the BR, play at home, in the car and in your "boom box"....rip to you computer, stream and download to your DAP.

[KnowTalent]

In my rambling, I forgot to make my point...

If you don't like the features on the M1, wait about 6 months after it's released.  The M2 or M3 will be ready for release by that time.

 

[Foolish Pleasure]

There's a price increase on this item.  Music Direct has them at $649, while Audio Advisor, who just got them in, has it at $699.  I got my order in today on the assurance that it's returnable wthin 30 days if I am not satisfied.

So if you've been interested, cop now.

I will put some burn-in time on it and report (saluting).