And for the sake of rigor, if you haven’t found out by now, one is a product launch announcement, another is its commercialization!
But maybe you have paranormal abilities and read the specifications of a product from a distance!
I feel like I’m talking to a child.
The key point is TBC. After the RD160 was announced and before it was launched, the official website and media released information first. At this time, the information was followed by the note “to be confirmed”.
Rose’s official US website has always lacked real-time maintenance, which has resulted in their information being kept at TBC, unlike the Korean official website which has the latest information.
It’s that simple, I can’t understand what you’re mad about
And if you actually read the ASR discussion thread, you’ll find that someone mentioned about the TBC issue.
Do your homework before you get angry.
The problem is not how much SINAD is and what the value should be, the problem is that the manufacturer is lying about the published specifications!
What’s your problem?
The SINAD information you called “lying” has “to be confirmed” written behind it.
If you keep ignoring the existence of TBC then there is nothing more to say.
For sharisselis:
Do you understand what I mean?
1 Like
Of course I know you want to say that Rose is lying.
But the fact is that they did not update the information to be confirmed
Do you understand what I mean?
1 Like
sharisselis,
Thanks for the information. I do know that SINAD is the combination of THD + N but not
the combination and conversion formula.
It would seem that the technology (and components) to lower SINAD is pretty well known. With a budget for an engineer to dream of, I wonder why they didn’t lower the SINAD. As they say “Any fool can design a Rolls Royce. It takes a genius to design a Chevrolet.”
StandardModel
In some interviews, Rose mentioned that they felt muses02 sounded better, even though its performance is not top notch.
There has been a lot of debate on the Internet about whether muses02 sounds good, so I won’t discuss it here.
sharisselis,
Thanks for pointing me to the op amps discussion. Does the RD 160 use two op amps per channel or one? There is indeed a lot of discussion on the internet about which version of the Muse 01,02 or 03 sounds best. My conclusion from reading is that 02 has better specifications but 03 sounds better. OTOH Chat GPT says the opposite:
-
- Muses 02: Often favored in applications where warmth and musicality are desired, such as home audio setups or musical instruments.
- Muses 03: Preferred in professional audio equipment and critical listening setups where accuracy and detail are paramount.
- Technical Specifications: Both op-amps have similar specifications in terms of bandwidth, slew rate, and power consumption, but the performance characteristics differ due to their design focus.
In summary, choose Muses 02 for a warmer sound and Muses 03 for a more neutral and detailed sonic experience."
Also look at this. 02 looks good :
I have read about op amp rolling on less expensive DACs. Would that be possible or beneficial on the RD 160 too? Also, since the MUSES02 will be discontinued and replaced by the MUSES 05 by the end of this year, it may be beneficial to be able to upgrade to the newer Muse 05 op amp.
I am purchasing the RD 160 unseen/unheard so I’m curious about its sound. What is it like? I currently have the LAiV Harmony and previously had the Gustard R2R R26 DAC.
StandardModel
RD160 uses 5 muses02 per channel, which is a rare configuration in DAC.
Muses03 and 05 have been discontinued, and only 02 and 01 are still available.
Compared to 02, 03 and 05 have much lower THD+N and much higher slew rate, which makes them much better products in objective measurement.
In addition, it is not possible to directly replace 02 with 03 or 05, because 02 is dual-channel, while 03 and 05 are mono. An adapter board is required to replace 02.
As for the sound of RD160, all I can say is that I like it very much, although its performance on paper is not outstanding.
The RD160 has a broad and natural sound field, neat and precise imaging, and it also has muses02’s signature smooth tone.
Compared to the Soulnote D2 I used before, which is also a high-end DAC, the RD160 is even better.
Of course, these are just my subjective listening experience and do not represent the same feelings of other people.
1 Like
sharisselis,
Thank you. I wonder what causes the difference between the paper statistics and the sound. One would think they would correlate.
StandardModel
I’ve seen that thread. You got laughed out of there because in a forum with “Science” literally in its name, “trust me, bro” arguments do not fly. Especially when they concern alleged differences that, if they exist at all, could be barely picked up by someone with 15 years old’s hearing. Definitely not by anyone of our advanced age.
That’s like a honor roll of people who have a clue. Just like paulie joins the ranks of other clowns who hear fiber differences. And probably voices telling them to do things…
Because the 160 is not aimed at people who want a transparent DAC that faithfully reproduces the recording. Different market niche.
Which they do. Despite many claims, once devices measure well enough there is no audible difference. With 160, which does not, there might be, but that just means that it might actually sound different. “Worse” if you want accurate playback (the “fidelity” part of “HiFi”) but it still might be pleasing if you don’t. Just like many people like tube sound even if it is nowhere near accurate.
Boris M,
As an Electrical Engineer I don’t make “Trust me bro” arguments. If it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist. OTOH, the one measurement that the science group uses is neither sufficient nor complete to describe all sound characteristics of a DAC and its op-amps.
StandardModel
And if it can be measured it is not necessarily audible.
SINAD, I suppose? It is more subtle than that. If the SINAD is bad enough, a single SINAD number will not describe how different devices with the same SINAD sound – and they can sound completely differently. RD-160 is on the upper end of what would be easily distinguishable, but some subtle differences could be heard. On the other hand if SINAD is well above the range where it is audible (150/250/520 should qualify) then it is a sufficient number to say that the device is transparent. Even if with sufficiently precise equipment you could find measurable differences not just between different models but even between samples of the same model. They just don’t make any meaningful difference.
BorisM,
I’m always willing to learn.
StandardModel
That’s great. You really should have stuck it on ASR though, realizing that it is an evidence-based place. There is someone coming in claiming to hear vast differences between things that can not possibly be different. But somehow there never is any evidence, other than “trust me, bro” presented.
I would not use ASR as the only source of information for purchase decisions – they quite purposely do not deal much with ergonomics, reliability, or features. You can learn a lot about how things really work though, and it’s a good source of info for removing certain products from consideration.
BorisM,
Is it the case that all sound files of the same song with equal SINAD will sound identical and be indistinguishable?
StandardModel
Files do not have SINAD, they are perfect, in regards to what is in them…
Reproduced through equipment with sufficiently good SINAD measurement, yes, they will be audibly identical in a blind test.
If the SINAD is worse than limits of audibility, then yes, it would be possible to tell them apart. It’s also when you would need to look at more detailed measurements than just a SINAD number to see what really is different.
160’s SINAD appears to be low enough that yes, it might be audibly different. Which, really, only means that it is not an accurate DAC. For all we know, Rose might have added distortion on purpose, to make it sound pleasing to the boss. If you happen to like the same distortion profile, 160 will work just fine for you (this, of course, assuming that you can actually distinguish it in a blind test). If you want something that can reproduce the recording as intended, you can do better at 1/10th the price, and extra distortion can always be added in a controlled manner.