I’ve been agonizing over the MK II since December. The Stereophile review did not help. Bottom line- with the trade in allowance offered by PS Audio there is not another DAC, that I am aware of, that does the kind of things I’m looking for sound quality wise for the price. The ability to try it in my own system, with the option to return it if it doesn’t meet my expectations, seals it for me.
6 Likes
Get it. It’s unlikely you’ll return it. 
2 Likes
thousands of reports about PSA DAC fixes in these forums, augmented by countless others elsewhere
I did not arrive at my concern lightly or without 5 months of research, especially in the context of my admiration of Paul, his background, and his mission.
1 Like
Here is where you would expect to find that. If I had something that was not working I would certainly check the forum first. But thousands…
I have seen many online reviewers and even on the yellow site say wonderful things. I have seen some report issues, but you can say that about any brand. Online is usually where you find negative first then positive. People in droves come online to report bad, how many who come and say I love it. 10% of the positive buyers? What % of the negative buyers come? I would say 75% at least. its been that way since the start of forums like this.
1 Like
1,684 comments in this thread alone, there are several other threads here discussing fixes as well, including third-party mods to address shortcomings
And all are saying its bad quality? Some are Tweaks. Some are UI changes that did cause the volume to be set low… Some things they turned on as new features. Half are people discussing what settings they liked better than others. Was their rollout perfect, no, in fact had flaws and IMO was a bit rushed, but after years of development and covid delays they decided to release to beta. My personal opinion was GA was a month or two too soon… thats it. Sounds like you want perfect product out of the gates, dont by rev 1 of anything. Just like in Software I never jump to a .0 release. BTW this is a software based DAC so same thing could be said for that.
3 Likes
Never said that
The title of this thread is “observations,” not “problems.”
Yes, there are issues noted here, but even more positive, informational, and the merely interesting.
3 Likes
Positives have been noted, but insufficient for purchase decision at this time
Has everyone here purchased, making my purchase decision off color?
I certainly realize the reports are observations.
Frankly, the majority of DAC purchase decisions here are not for PSA DACS.
1 Like
I normally don’t get into squabbles…but… you did say this…
I think all agree the Beta to GA was not a smooth transition, but its all software based issues. New product with new software bases features comes issues. Beta should have lasted longer. Want to avoid issues, don’t upgrade for a few days. That is what I did with 2.5.1, saw the bug it introduced and said I will wait for next. Guess being in support in IT has made me a bit more soft on vendors than you. Used to seeing this sort of thing on a daily basis makes me a bit more lenient. But for an 8k device maybe I should not be.
3 Likes
Yes, “about”, not necessarily fully negative
Lon, Thank you for getting me to the right thread for the Stereophile review. 
I wonder if we need a guide book as to which thread to post in. 
1 Like
Sorry that my purchase consideration is not lenient
As I said often here, I admire PSA
You are not alone with the crowd that is waiting. Many others have posted they are going to wait a bit as the code settles in. The good thing is 30 day trial. The bigger issue is when you order now its months out due to parts shortages. Hard to compare products even if all had that same 30 day return. its all going to be from memory. not a real A/B
2 Likes
This is only my opinion. I think part of what sets PSA apart, and potentially can sometimes hurt them, is their open nature regarding product discussion, announcements, alpha and beta testing, and so forth. I’ve been part of PSA’s (and Iconoclast’s) beta testing long before this MkII release. In the past, beta testing was mostly a “behind closed doors” affair. We did what we did, made our reports, discussed sometimes via email. Time has gone on and things don’t work that way (so much - there is still some non-public beta that goes on) anymore. So everyone gets to see the sausage before the ends are tied off. Makes for a lot more premature visibility, both good and bad.
In the case of the MkII, it means we all saw the reports of the board change that required rework. No one but the beta testers would have known about that in the old days. How many posts were about that? Did PSA maybe go into general release a bit too early? Maybe, but I have no insight into whatever complex decision making Paul had to make when the decision was made for general release. And as pointed out by others, this is a true software (UI and processing) driven product. Doesn’t excuse bugs, but these are temporary hinderances, not design show stoppers. Heck, even the old PWD had SW changes that were sometimes two steps forward, one step backward. Keep in mind, for the complaints (including my own! 
) of the Airlens delays potentially making that a product a day too late (given the march of other products that have come out and will come out), if the MkII were delayed until ‘there was nothing left to do’ I think PSA could have risked having it left by the wayside.
As to the hundreds of messages here and in other threads regarding tweaks, that’s just audiophilia I guess.
I’m stepping off the soap 
now.
13 Likes
I ask, why.
kzk, Hold on, how about some actual data. I have had a subscription to HFN ( HFN&RR ) for over a decade now ( I have yet to get my June issue because I am in the US ). HFN gives all gear a numerical score and most gear gets a sticker. The correlation between the number and the sticker is not 100%, but close to 100%. The three stickers are: Highly Commended ( green ), Outstanding Product ( red ) and Editor’s Choice ( blue ).
I reviewed the last four issues ( February - May ) and this is what I found from about 40 reviews. The lowest I saw was no sticker and a score of 74. Over 50% of the products get scores from 86 to 94 and a red sticker that says the gear is Outstanding. The rest score between 80 and 85 and get a green sticker ( they are Commended ). I saw only one blue sticker and it scored 85.
The range of 86 to 94 is very small and all are Outstanding. I do not think the difference between 87 and 94 is a big deal.
There are multiple DAC manufacturers.
If they all were equally good and sold equally well you would see what you are describing there.
Particularly because this is a forum that welcomes consumers of all brands, even though it is a PSA run and focussed site in theory 
This German made DAC really has caught my interest. VU meter’s aren’t really my thing but using them to indicate when the DAC is warmed up is quite useful. Sound quality appears to be very good. I don’t need a built in preamp however. No trade in program to get the price down either.
1 Like
Based on a reading of the magazine on and off for last 5-10 years, I’d (and it’s just my opinion) say reviews that get scores of:
91+ would be considered Excellent.
88-90 would be considered Good (above average).
87 Average.
85-86 Underwhelming (below average).
84 and below Poor.
Just my read of it. Unscientific. Those subjective labels that you mention, almost every product they review gets one of those labels, so I tend to ignore them because they become meaningless if every reviewed product earns one.
The percentage scores, at least in my mind, tend to be more helpful, and I like that they aren’t afraid to give poorer scores. Take it FWIW, just my opinion.
Edit: Like when FR30 got a 90%, I said right away, wow, that’s a really good score (because not a big percentage of reviewed products get a score of 90 or better). When BHK600 got an 87 (if memory serves), I said I’m sure PSA were hoping for better, and I’d venture the same guess wrt the mk2 score.