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.
BorisM,
Thank you for the explanation. This means that unless SINAD is changed, no different amplifier class, tube rolling, Op-Amp exchanges, oxygen free copper wire, triple power supplies, optical isolation, etc, etc has any effect at all. It’s all completely pointless. How that SINAD is achieved is completely irrelevant.
This also means that Dacs with the same SINAD will sound exactly alike and be indistinguishable in every respect. Amplifiers of the same SINAD no matter what their design or components sound exactly identical.
Also, all Dacs with a SINAD above the human hearing level sound identical. Therefore it’s pointless to ever design a device with a SINAD above the level of human hearing as they all will sound exactly the same.
When you refer to a “distortion profile” I am assuming you mean an decrease in SINAD to a point within the level of human hearing. Again, am I correct? This would be a reason for a lower SINAD in the Rose DAC, to insert a “signature sound” of distortion?
Reviewers should be out of business. All they need to do is publish one number and they’re done.
Correct? FWIW, Cameron at Golden Sound Audio disagrees with placing so much importance on SINAD (https://youtu.be/w4-euCGbYNQ) Myths About Audio Measurements. I assume you disagree?
This is an epiphany for me.
Certainly a lot of wasted time at magazines, audio shows, etc.
StandardModel
You’re welcome.
Well duh! 
Outside of some extreme cases, none of the above makes any difference. And when it does, you see it in SINAD.
As mentioned, the above applies only if the SINAD is above the audibility threshold.
Carver, I believe, had demonstrated long ago that he ould make a sold-state amplifier that no golden eared audiophile could tell apart from whatever precious musical tube amp they were claiming would never be bettered by any harsh analytical cheapskate solid state.
Yes and yes. But that’s not what drives the market. We’ve had a pretty much perfect design of a fork for at least several centuries. Still, new fork designs come out every year. None of them “fork” any better than what Napoleon used but still.
Or, if you will, mechanical watches are now as accurate as you can get a mechanical timekeeping device to be (and nowhere near what even a cheapest quartz watch can achieve) but people pay hundreds of thousands for them. Even though for telling time accurately, you don’t need anything beyond a $20 Timex.
While you (or anyonme else) will not hear any difference between a device with 110 or 140 SINAD, assuming that they have the same aesthetics and functionality, one might want the 140 one just for the sake of having a better engineered product. At least that makes more sense than buying something simply because it is more expensive,
I mean that if the SINAD is worse than that audibility limit, SINAD alone does not tell us whether it comes from noise only (bad), distortion only (could be euphonic, could be not) or some combination thereof. In the case of 160 it’s some combination that does not sound bad. It is possible that there is some purposely chosen distortion that someone thought sounds good…
So-called reviewers (hanses and darkos of the world) absolutely should be out of business. That said, of course we need some honest reviews – ASR, unless you want to delve into discussions, does not really tell you anything about features, ergonomics, build quality, long-term reliability etc. etc.
Besides, some people DO want distortion. Or sometimes want distortion. That’s why there are products like Lampizator DAC, SET tube amps etc. etc.
As I’ve said above, SINAD alone is not a sufficient indicator. Unless you are looking for something very particular (e.g. a tube-sounding DAC) for some odd reason, SINAD would tell you what absolutely not to buy but now what you actually should buy.
Oh, and of course someone whose bread is buttered with providing flowery long-winded reviews for payola would claim that measurements alone are not sufficient. And Darko is sponsored by AudioQuest. He will never tell his audience that in reality there is no such thing as a CAT7 cable that they could plug into anything at home – AQ sells them, and he won’t bite the hand that feeds him – let alone that such a cable could not make any difference.
Stereophile at least provides some measurements and if you read between the lines well enough you often can notice when the product is complete crap even if they would never say it. Most of the others… yes, complete waste of time other than for the pictures. And of course these days you can find pictures on the manufacturer’s website, no need to wait for a new issue of the magazine to drop in your mailbox.
You have to remember that these people make a living providing favorable reviews in return for sponsorships and free samples. If they cone out and say that no, inserting a $5000 switch did not make any difference they will be out of business.
Shows are fun – you can see things live, poke them, maybe find something you’ve never thought of before. And sure, there might be something about hearing a million dollars speaker system (and realizing that it is not actually any good) 
BorisM,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. To clarify, am I correct that SINAD is measured with a 1kHz sine wave?
To me this means that devices which have distortion at high or low frequencies but measure well at 1kHz, for example a “U” shaped response curve could have a high SINAD but sound awful?
The same would apply to an orchestral reproduction of high transients and lots of harmonics vs an easy to reproduce sine wave. So a high SINAD is necessary but perhaps not sufficient for accurate signal reproduction?
StandardModel
Amir has a rather detailed explanation of what he measures and what those measurements mean, but no, he measures other frequencies and multitone signals, as well as the frequency response, so s U-shaped FR would show. In 2025 it does take quit a bit of effort (i.e. an R2R, or some NOS job, or defaulting to slow filters) to produce a DAC that does not have a flat response at least for the 20-20 range.
Of course if something isn’t quite linear in the 15-20KHz range neither I nor you will hear any of it anyway…