07-Mar-2016, 14:27
Please find the report I filed on another blog re Mutec MC-3+ USB vs Acousence AFIS-USB
Quote:I am the happy owner of two Mutec MC-3+ USB, connected in cascade (via AES/EBU). Having read with interest the report of *progear, I approached Acousence with the intent to listen to one of their products. After giving financial guarantee to Acousence, Ralf Koschnicke, its founder, kindly sent me a test equipment that I intend to review here in comparison with the Mutec MC-3+ USB cascade.
Test configuration :
Music is streamed from Qobuz through Audirvana 2.3.3 on a Mac Mini (2.8 GHz dual-core i5, 2TB Fusion Drive). Music flow is upsampled to 24/192 on the Mac via iZotope. Mac is connected via USB to the Mutec cascade (Oyaide cable) and through Acousence supplied cable to the Acousence AFIS-USB.
Mutec cascade connected via AES/EBU to the Devialet D900 Master (Mogami Gold Pro cables). Acousence connected via AES/EBU to the D900 Companion (Acousence RJ45/AES-EBU cable). Loudspeakers = B&W 802d3 with Cardas Clearlight cables.
General impression : the musical flow seems smother to my ears with the Acousence AFIS-USB than with the Mutec cascade. Music seems even more natural, analogic. The soundstage width and depth is similar in both configurations. The localization of voices/instruments on the soundstage is at least as good with the Acousence if not slightly better, than with the Mutec cascade.
Listening to The Ballad of Bill Hubbard (Roger Waters, Amused to Death) : I am always using this track to make sure that I am sitting at the right place on my sofa, and that the loudspeakers are well in place. As expected, the dog is barking at 9:00 and the woman's voice is at 3:00. Compared to the Mutec, the width of the stage is at least as large, if not slightly larger.
Listening to Kyrie (Mercedes Soza, Missa Criolia), the separation between the guitar and the flute at 1:29 into the track is perfect ; the guitar is clearly playing from the center left, and the flute from the center right. Same remark as above ; the separation is slightly better with AFIS than with the Mutec cascade.
Listening to Dancing Barefoot (Patti Smith, Land, Digitally Remastered 1996),
with Mutec cascade, percussions (especially the cymbals) are a little too bright, too present, making this record nearly difficult to listen to.
With the Acousence, the percussions are still very detailled, but the music seems more natural, less surgical.
Listening to 'Un di, felice, etera - La Traviata' (Cheryl Studer, Luciano Pavaroti, Metropolitan Opera), the restitution of the voices is very good in both configurations. The position and presentation of voices appears more natural with the Acousence IMHO ; what is surprising is the position of the Tenor vs the Soprano, which seems to me better defined with the Acousence. The voice of the Tenor clearly comes from a position which seems to be on the right of the voice of the Soprano, as figured on the Album Artwork. With the Mutec, the respective positions seem more confused. Is this an artefact linked to my system or is it trully a better restitution of the sound track ?
Conclusion : as the prospect of getting huge benefit from a more precise clock seems limited in my configuration (the sound card of my Mac cannot be driven by an external clock, and my DAC is asynchronous), I tend to understand that the better isolation/signal regeneration of the Acousence is doing a better job in my configuration.
For what it's worth :-)
