MSB's new Sentinel DAC

[Alrainbow]

Many years ago one of my companies did ultra high end renovations for customers who barely lived there.
I would make sure the closets stacked with equipment had its own HVAC systems
Yes there own And why that is simple it would be controlled by the audio installer.
so your comments are very well needed
my comments were not intended to imply
A negative thought.
I know even now people who have no ac in there rooms or houses and love tubes too

 

[Young Skywalker]

I hope It was not me starting a vinyl compare to the Sentinel. I didn't mean to do that.

I do wonder how the engineer designing these DAC decide how to voice them. Do they listen to other digital. Do they cut masters like Ralph in a private studio, then play them back. What is the media they play. Do they listen to the poor recordings most of us suffer with and try to improve what you can get from them. Even the system they use matters. Is it a SS and Magico. Is it a SET and horn. Or both.

To some degree I can see the pricing. You have a couple engineer working on something. You have the tools to manufacture parts. There is a big capital investment. DAC and Servers have come a long way from a off the shelf chip and Circuit Board. They are custom bespoke parks built for the purpose. In some cases. Some of the chips still seem to be built by a dedicated chip company making millions for the market.

And in the end, I do wonder how much better a $350,000 DAC is to my $11,000 DAC. One of those things I will never know. Just like I will never know if a $18,000 power cable sounds better than my $500 cable.

I am sure one of the MSB crew will chime in on this but I would be willing to bet that the Sentinel, like all MSB products, is developed using a pure engineering and science-based approach. The listening component would serve to verify if a theoretical engineering advancement does indeed translate into higher fidelity playback. For this step, a low-distortion and low-noise system and room are required. Happy to elaborate on my definition of high fidelity playback and how I recognise it.

In my experience, whether it is a DAC or a turntable/tonearm/phono pre, efforts to remove distortions/colourations and lower self-noise results in hearing deeper into a recording and thus, greater musical involvement because one is even closer to the captured live sound. Ironically, this makes previously mediocre recordings far more accessible while elevating the most natural sounding recordings to another level.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I hope It was not me starting a vinyl compare to the Sentinel. I didn't mean to do that.

doubt it. no worries.

I do wonder how the engineer designing these DAC decide how to voice them. Do they listen to other digital.

here is the Wadax informercial answering that question in their own way. probably much in common generally with MSB. dCS OTOH is significant in pro audio so maybe that has some relevance for them. i don't know. @microstrip likely can chime in with details about them.

 

[pk_LA]

I look at digital as a package in comparison to vinyl. With digital I have complete and instant control from where I listen. With vinyl - not so much. And while I do prefer the sound of vinyl to digital, there are many albums and even genres that sound as good (albeit different) on digital as on vinyl. Also, I find that various dacs do better with various music. My Horizon has wonderful mid- and upper-midrange body and warmth. My MSB Select, while also warm in the mid- and upper-midrange, resolves the lower and upper frequencies better. Anyway, I am maybe rambling - sorry! I remain very interested in the Sentinel!

 

[caesar]

I am sure one of the MSB crew will chime in on this but I would be willing to bet that the Sentinel, like all MSB products, is developed using a pure engineering and science-based approach. The listening component would serve to verify if a theoretical engineering advancement does indeed translate into higher fidelity playback. For this step, a low-distortion and low-noise system and room are required. Happy to elaborate on my definition of high fidelity playback and how I recognise it.

In my experience, whether it is a DAC or a turntable/tonearm/phono pre, efforts to remove distortions/colourations and lower self-noise results in hearing deeper into a recording and thus, greater musical involvement because one is even closer to the captured live sound. Ironically, this makes previously mediocre recordings far more accessible while elevating the most natural sounding recordings to another level.

Sir,
Interesting you say that. I don't have much experience with the current generation of MSB. But the previous generation sounded too smoothed over to me. It lacked dynamics and the DAC didn't finish / decay the notes properly. I am not sure if "it's a feature or a bug" - maybe both. I wonder if these flaws were fixed in the Sentinel.

 

[Young Skywalker]

Sir,
Interesting you say that. I don't have much experience with the current generation of MSB. But the previous generation sounded too smoothed over to me. It lacked dynamics and the DAC didn't finish / decay the notes properly. I am not sure if "it's a feature or a bug" - maybe both. I wonder if these flaws were fixed in the Sentinel.

I have owned MSB DACs since the Platinum Signature III era (now on Reference DAC + Director) and have never heard the sonic signature you describe through loudspeakers.

To be fair, my loudspeaker system, throughout that period of ownership, has been substantially more revealing than most and I have always used the passive volume control of the MSB DACs to drive my active line level crossovers. Listening to my Reference DAC through my headphone rig (Headamp GS-X mk2 and Focal Utopia) reveals a different sonic signature which is less dynamic and resolving which goes to show how easily one can molest the delicate analog signal post conversion.

I would suggest that those who use passive crossover speakers are NOT hearing what an MSB DAC can do IF they are using a separate active lineage preamp and another manufacturer’s amplifier. Most simply add too much of their own character to the sound. Want to know what a Cascade DAC can really do? Then pair it with MSB’s S500 or M500 amplifiers. Want to hear what the Sentinel DAC can do? Then it would be necessary to use it with the matching MSB Sentinel amplifier/s.

 

[caesar]

I have owned MSB DACs since the Platinum Signature III era (now on Reference DAC + Director) and have never heard the sonic signature you describe. My loudspeaker system, throughout that period of ownership, has been substantially more revealing than most and I have always used the passive volume control of the MSB DACs to drive my active line level crossovers. Listening to my Reference DAC through my headphone rig (Headamp GS-X mk2 and Focal Utopia) reveals a different sonic signature which is less dynamic and resolving which goes to show how easily one can molest the delicate analog signal post conversion.

All good. I have heard and compared also - both with their internal volume control (pathetic!)and with stand- alone preamps. I stand by what I wrote. My understanding is that they improved the dynamics in latest generation. But I am not sure the notes finish completely or are blurred.

We all perceive differently. Enjoy

 

[Kingrex]

I would suggest that those who use passive crossover speakers are NOT hearing what an MSB DAC can do IF they are using a separate active lineage preamp and another manufacturer’s amplifier. Most simply add too much of their own character to the sound. Want to know what a Cascade DAC can really do? Then pair it with MSB’s S500 or M500 amplifiers. Want to hear what the Sentinel DAC can do? Then it would be necessary to use it with the matching MSB Sentinel amplifier/s.

Not buying it. Maybe I'm wrong. Possibly sad if a MSB DAC only works best with MSB amps. But your not using a MSB amp if your passion is active speakers controled by DSP.

There have been a few threads on preamps. I seem to remember many preferring a good preamp over a passive ladder or control built into most any DAC mentioned.

 

[Young Skywalker]

All good. I have heard and compared also - both with their internal volume control (pathetic!)and with stand- alone preamps. I stand by what I wrote. My understanding is that they improved the dynamics in latest generation. But I am not sure the notes finish completely or are blurred.

We all perceive differently. Enjoy

At least I have qualified the context in which my subjective opinions were formed. That

Not buying it. Maybe I'm wrong. Possibly sad if a MSB DAC only works best with MSB amps. But your not using a MSB amp if your passion is active speakers controled by DSP.

There have been a few threads on preamps. I seem to remember many preferring a good preamp over a passive ladder or control built into most any DAC mentioned.

My active speakers are all analogue, no DSP. Flat to below 20 Hz in room from sealed boxes. If I was using a passive crossover loudspeaker then I would use MSB’s own amplifiers. But having said that, why would I want to throw away most of the music (recovered by my MSB DAC) by using a deeply compromised passive crossover network when a properly implemented active system is superior in every way regardless of how much money one throws at the problem.

One’s preference for putting an active linestage preamplifier behind an ultra-resolution DAC is all about the idea of audio as a subjective musical instrument and not about high fidelity to the recording.

 

[Kingrex]

My active speakers are all analogue, no DSP. Flat to below 20 Hz in room from sealed boxes. If I was using a passive crossover loudspeaker then I would use MSB’s own amplifiers. But having said that, why would I want to throw away most of the music (recovered by my MSB DAC) by using a deeply compromised passive crossover network when a properly implemented active system is superior in every way regardless of how much money one throws at the problem.

One’s preference for putting an active linestage preamplifier behind an ultra-resolution DAC is all about the idea of audio as a subjective musical instrument and not about high fidelity to the recording.

There are other threads where this post belongs. Its interesting, but not here.

 

[Young Skywalker]

There are other threads where this post belongs. Its interesting, but not here.

Just correcting your wrong assumption. Moving on.

 

[Kingrex]

One’s preference for putting an active linestage preamplifier behind an ultra-resolution DAC is all about the idea of audio as a subjective musical instrument and not about high fidelity to the recording.

Thats not true. Its about putting a better preamp in line with the DAC to improve the bosting of the signal to a level the amplifier can use. At a minimum, its usually very audible. Some people like direct from a internal device. Others like external, designed specifically for the purpose. It seems you have picked your flavor. But your flavor may be disliked by others. Or maybe liked. But it does not make your flavor correct. Just something that works for you.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

One’s preference for putting an active linestage preamplifier behind an ultra-resolution DAC is all about the idea of audio as a subjective musical instrument and not about high fidelity to the recording.

Thats not true. Its about putting a better preamp in line with the DAC to improve the bosting of the signal to a level the amplifier can use. At a minimum, its usually very audible. Some people like direct from a internal device. Others like external, designed specifically for the purpose. It seems you have picked your flavor. But your flavor may be disliked by others. Or maybe liked. But it does not make your flavor correct. Just something that works for you.

keeping the discussion on topic........reading the Cascade dac website description, where it specifies a passive internal preamp like the Select II, and then reading the Sentinel description, where it omits any mention of 'passive' preamp, it appears that the Sentinel might have an active preamp. the term they use is "Fully independent left / right analog preamp". they do not come out and say 'active' or 'passive', they do allow direct bi-amping so the preamp drive must be sufficient for more than one analog output which does point toward an active gain stage.

having owned and tried the MSB Select II passive preamp direct, i did mostly prefer my darTZeel preamp in the chain. but going direct was very fine for sure. so this is interesting. the proof is in the listening either way.

i've not read every post in this thread so maybe this has already been discussed? this issue is quite significant for any legit Sentinel intenders, as many are seeking minimal footprint and ease of use. if an active gain stage ups the ante to equate to a high level active pre then that is a big plus.

 

[Brucemck2]

I use a Cascade directly to my actively crossed speakers. There’s no lack of dynamics or slam. Gorgeous color, tone, soundstage ….

With a prior generation of MSB products (Premier) I preferred having a preamp (VTL 7.5 II) in the chain, whereas with a Reference + Director I went back and forth between preamp/not in the chain (“different” more than better/worse).

 

[MattK]

If you're hearing a distinct sonic difference between the Cascade driving the amp directly and running it through a preamp—aside from changes in gain—then your preamp is introducing distortion, coloration, or impedance-related artifacts. In that case, it’s not a transparent component—it's editorializing the signal. You may prefer that coloration, but let’s not confuse euphonic distortion with fidelity.

 

[pk_LA]

E

If you're hearing a distinct sonic difference between the Cascade driving the amp directly and running it through a preamp—aside from changes in gain—then your preamp is introducing distortion, coloration, or impedance-related artifacts. In that case, it’s not a transparent component—it's editorializing the signal. You may prefer that coloration, but let’s not confuse euphonic distortion with fidelity.

EVERY one of these devices adds distortion, coloration etc. If what you seek is a minimum of these then there are some interesting products offered at a fraction of the cost of the ones we are discussing here. Dartzeel, for example, are very noisy amplifiers. And, they sound absolutely wonderful. Tubes...well, you get my point.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

If you're hearing a distinct sonic difference between the Cascade driving the amp directly and running it through a preamp—aside from changes in gain—then your preamp is introducing distortion, coloration, or impedance-related artifacts. In that case, it’s not a transparent component—it's editorializing the signal. You may prefer that coloration, but let’s not confuse euphonic distortion with fidelity.

we have killed the topic of what the term 'transparency' means here on WBF. many think it includes transparency of dynamics to the source. and that that is the biggie. on that subject better active preamps win going away in my experience. and i used a passive preamp only for 4 years searching for an active preamp that was better; so i acknowledge the value of passive. if you shrink the term "transparency" to just clarity and neutrality then a case can be made in favor of passive preamps. but music is much more than that. and most prefer the 'much more' boogie factor and immersion.

better active preamps also have advantages of exotic power supplies and very special volume attenuators. these circuits can make big audible transparency differences so can effect the passive advantages.

also note it's bad to throw around generalizations that don't always apply. i have not heard all the passive preamps, or all the active preamps. so maybe there are passive outliers that do it all.

 

[Phantom-Audio]

It’s funny how “transparency” often gets treated like it’s some absolute state. In reality, no component is perfectly neutral—every piece in the chain shapes the signal a little, whether that’s measurable distortion, phase shift, or interaction with the load.

That’s why I don’t see a bit of coloration as automatically being “less faithful.” Sometimes what we call coloration is really just voicing that works beautifully with the rest of the system—and with our ears.

The magic often isn’t in a sterile, ruler‑flat response, but in how the components complement each other’s quirks in a way that makes the music feel alive and believable

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...gents, I will chip-in with this: I did a comparison of the MSB Reference/DD using the Taiko Olympus XDMI workflow compared to the Taiko Olympus XDMI internal dac.

Both workflows were adequately burned-in and settled.

I had an MSB dealer from 65 miles away and Vince G. of MSB here for 4-5 hours listening. We also used the Reference/DD as a pre-amp. Normally, I did not use it that way.

My understanding is the MSB guys preferred the sound with the Ref as pre-amp.

Near the end, they brought in an MSB stereo amp to try. Again, I believe those guys preferred this set-up best.

About a week and a half later, Vince and I reconvened and listened again, with some other cables Vince brought.

Myself, I liked my pre, but the all-MSB flow was excellent too. It makes complete sense to me the guys would prefer the MSB sound (however it might be described) as that is what they are familiar with...and how the products were voiced in development.

In this regard, it may be fair to say the preferred MSB sound is dac as pre and MSB amps. It's a very cohesive sound, developed together.

Other components are of course fine, and may be preferred by some. It was preferred by me! But in this use-case, I think it's fair to consider the all-MSB system as a benchmark of sorts, as it sounds as they intended it to sound. And we add salt or pepper to taste. Cheers.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I look at digital as a package in comparison to vinyl.

Why not tape ?
Why compare to vinyl only ?

There are several qualities digital cannot ovecome no matter how much money they throw at it.

But there is also some music where digital excells like Organ and Electronic music