Jump to content
  • Josh Mound
    Josh Mound

    Matrix X-SABRE Pro (MQA) DAC Review

    mqa_hardware_intro.pngEarly in my audiophiledom, I inadvertently stumbled upon the fact that DAC chips can have different sonic signatures when I bought a Yulong SABRE DA8. The DA8 was based around the then-state of the art ESS9018 SABRE chip. I’d read nothing but good things about SABRE chips prior to my purchase. But upon inserting the DA8 into my modest system, I immediately was disappointed. 

     

    When rendered by the DA8, everything seemed to have an artificial sheen. Electric bass guitar, in particular, often sounded far too close to a synth bass through the DA8. Digging into some threads about the DA8, I realized that I was hearing what some have dubbed the (in)famous “SABRE glare.”

     

    Since then, I’ve heard other SABRE-based DACs with even worse glare, but also a few that have avoided it. Overall, though, I’ve been cautious about SABRE-based DACs. You know what they say about first impressions.

     

    It’s with this caution that I approached the Matrix X-SABRE Pro (MQA) DAC (U.S MSRP $1,999).

     

     

    xsp_mqa_pre.jpgThe first thing that struck me about the Matrix was its build. Machined from a solid piece of aluminum, the Matrix is solid and beautiful. It feels like a luxury product and has a distinct Apple-esque flare to its design. 

     

    The rear of the X-SABRE Pro (XSP) is clearly laid out, with XLR and RCA analog outputs and AES, RCA coaxial, TOSLINK optical, I2S, and USB digital inputs. The bottom of the XSP features a simple voltage switch, eliminating region confusion with used purchases. 

     

    After setting up the X-SABRE Pro (XSP), the average user will have little need to fiddle with back or underside of the unit, since all of the DAC’s controls are located along the front in a recessed, oblong touch LCD panel. From left to right, the XSP features power, input auto scan, USB, I2S, volume up, volume down, optical, coax and AES buttons. These functions also can be accessed from the XSP’s remote. Like the unit itself, it’s sleek and sturdy. Easy access to the XSP’s volume control on both the unit itself and the remote makes it an excellent candidate for those looking for a DAC/preamp for use with a power amp.

     

    In the center of the oblong touch panel is a small, round screen that displays which input is currently in use, the current file’s format and sample rate, and the unit’s volume. 

     

    More advanced controls can be accessed by pressing the XSP’s power button for two seconds. This puts the XSP into setup mode, which allows the user to set the unit to preamp mode (volume control) or DAC mode (fixed output), turn dither on or off, select from seven PCM filters, select the DSD cutoff frequency, turn the jitter reducer on or off, and select between synchronous or asynchronous clock settings for the ES9038PRO chip, among other features

     

    While I don’t have much use for MQA as a format, I opted for the MQA-equipped version of the SABRE Pro because it uses the XMOS XU216 chip for its USB input, while the non-MQA version of the SABRE Pro uses the U6 XMOS. 

     

    xsp_mqa_6.pngWhile I’ve played with all of the XSP’s inputs and settings over the months I’ve had it, the USB input was used for most of the listening in this review, along with the fast roll-off linear filter, dither on, and jitter reducer off. Most of my use has featured the XSP in DAC (fixed output) mode, feeding an either the Schiit Ragnarok integrated amplifier or the Monoprice Monolith THX 887 headphone amplifier 1. However, I also tried the XSP into a power amp and had no qualms with its preamp volume control. 

     

    My first thought after firing up the X-SABRE Pro and running through some of my go-to audition tracks was “Wow, this isn’t yesterday’s SABRE DAC!” 

     

    The XSP presents itself as simultaneously clean and tonally rich. The sound of an acoustic guitar, for example, comes across just a bit like a multibit DAC on the XSP without the resolution sacrifice and high-end roll-off that comes with many multibit implementations. Overall, I’d call the XSP a neutral, shading to warm, sounding DAC. There’s nary a hit of glare or shrillness in the XSP’s presentation. In other words, it’s a delta-sigma DAC that multibit fans should try out. (Didn’t I say it doesn’t sound like yesterday’s SABRE?)

     

    I decided to pit the XSP against the previously reviewed RME ADI-2 DAC FS (U.S. MSRP $1,099). While the Matrix is significantly pricier than the RME, both are “perfectmeasuring DACs. I level-matched the RME and the Matrix as close as possible, giving the former the .2 dB volume edge and, therefore, perhaps a slight advantage. 

     

     

    xsp_mqa_cnc.png

     

     

    The first album up was the 2012 hi-res remaster of David Bowie’s The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. On the album’s emotional, apocalyptic opener, “Five Years,” the skin of Mick “Woody” Woodmansey’s kick drum comes across as more three-dimensional through the Matrix, suggesting that it has the edge in microdetail over the RME. Mick Ronson’s ominously sluggish autoharp chords seem to emerge further left and right on the XSP, in line with what seems to be a slightly wider stage from the SABRE. 

     

    Turning to one of my favorite system audition albums, Van Morrison’s unreleased songs collection, The Philosopher’s Stone, I put on “I Have Finally Come to Realise,” a wonderful tune cut live-in-studio at the Record Plant in Sausalito, California, in 1975. With John Blakey’s opening guitar strums, the strings are easier to distinguish individually on the SABRE, whereas they blend together more on RME. Through the XSP, it’s easier to pick out the string articulation on David Hayes’s electric bass, and there’s more front-to-back depth on Bernie Krause’s Moog. Finally, much less room sound is evident on Van’s voice through the RME. As a result, the SABRE creates a better sense of space than the RME.

     

    Moving on to the hi-res edition of Wilco’s A Ghost Is Born, it was much easier to hear bleed from instrumental parts removed from the final mix — early staccato distorted guitar strums on “Hell Is Chrome” and a blistering guitar solo at the beginning of “Spiders (Kidsmoke)” — through the SABRE than through the RME, a fact that reinforced my sense that the XSP simply bests the RME in detail retrieval. 

     

    Through a range of material, amplifiers, and speakers/headphones, my overall takeaway was that XSP provides a soundstage that was both wider and deeper than the ADI-2’s. The XSP may trade a slight bit of bass slam to the ADI-2 for better bass texture. But the biggest difference is the XSP’s greater clarity, exhibited by its superior macro- and, especially, micro-detail compared to the ADI-2. I often had the urge to reach over and turn up the ADI, despite the fact that I gave it the slight volume edge against the SABRE. The XSP simply resolved the recordings better. 

     

    To make things even more interesting, I pitted the X-SABRE PRO against the Schiit Yggdrasil (U.S. MSRP $2,399) and ran through much of the same music. With the Yggdrasil, the XSP was up against a DAC that’s both pricier and features a multibit architecture. In this comparison, some differences were apparent, but it was more difficult to declare an overall winner. 

     

    The Yggdrasil presents a significantly deeper soundstage than the XSP and an altogether more realistic timbre, though the Yggdrasil’s edge in the latter is much smaller than in the former. The XSP, in contrast, seems to pull ever-so-slightly more detail out of some recordings than the Yggdrasil. I’d hazard to stay that there are other differences between the Matrix and the Schiit when it comes to bass slam (advantage Schiit), left-to-right staging (advantage Matrix), macro-dynamics (advantage Schiit), and other characteristics, but no hands-down winner emerges. Overall, they’re both superb, balanced DACs. Whereas the XSP emerged as the clear winner against the RME, the choice of XSP or Yggdrasil is more one of tradeoffs and individual taste.

     

    In short, the Matrix X-SABRE Pro (MQA) is a remarkable DAC that should be considered by anyone in the market for a serious, resolving (and seriously resolving) audiophile DAC. 

     

     

     

    1. Most speaker listening was done on KEF Reference 1 speakers with an SVS SB-13 Ultra subwoofer. Headphone listening included  Focal Utopia, Sennheiser HD800S, MrSpeakers Ether 2, and ZMF Verité open and closed.

     

     

     

    xs2_3.png

     

     

     

     

    Product Information:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    About the Author

    jm.png

     

    Josh Mound has been an audiophile since age 14, when his father played Spirit's "Natures Way" through his Boston Acoustics floorstanders and told Josh to listen closely. Since then, Josh has listened to lots of music, owned lots of gear, and done lots of book learnin'. He's written about music for publications like Filter and Under the Radar and about politics for publications like New Republic, Jacobin, and Dissent. Josh is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Virginia, where he teaches classes on modern U.S. politics and the history of popular music. He lives in Charlottesville, Virginia, with his wife and two cats.




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    2 hours ago, Foggie said:

    Thus my statement "Every Forum"  Don't read too much into it

     

    I meant this forum, don't get exited😀

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks for this review.  Wondered on these pages why there were no reviews of this and other high value/high feature DACs like this and Topping and Yulong...

     

    Unless I missed it, no mention on how this sounds with CA approved software like HQ Player or A+ taking advantage of this unit's ability to play DSD256+ up converted files like I do every day on my Mytek B+? My experience is that these software players take the performance of the B+ to a much higher level.  Comparing the Schitt unit at its top resolution versus the XSP at its top available resolution would be a more realistic display of how it would be best employed by a CA member.

     

    As a 100% CA music player, I have sold my 8 tube pre amp (expensive attenuator) and run my power amp from my B+ DAC straight up.  Some comparison of the XSP in preamp mode versus a B+ or other product like the RME would also be informative for those of us who believe that pre amps are boat anchors if you are 100% CA.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I figure I might as well share my experience...

     

    I owned the XSP early on, however I personally didn't like the "glossy" 9038 Pro sound, a little too much sparkle in the top octave and not the deepest sound stage either.  I then tried an ADI-2, which had a more "unprocessed" sound with great precision.  However it's sound stage was compact and it lacked dynamic punch.  Eventually I settled on two DAC's.  A Khadas Tone Board, that does much of what the XSP does but with a darker lusher sound.  And a Topping D90, which brings all the air and micro detail of the XSP, but with greater depth / layering. 

     

    I break out the TB for all my albums recorded by deaf gentleman, there's a lot unfortunately :)  

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 2/6/2020 at 10:50 AM, KDinsmore said:

    I just read what I typed. Of course I worded it wrong. Only the Matrix is on the list. Still on the fence. An audio buddy of mine tells me that I do this every two years or so and I always am disappointed with the results. Unfortunately I’m not listening to him.

    I am full of Audio GAS!! I bought a Chord Qutest and it is superb!!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi there Barrows

    Thanks for the info above. 

    1. I run a SMSL VMV D1 which uses dual ESS 9038 Pro DAC chips

    2. It has been my standard practice to just set the Clock at Asynchronous mode

    3. I just tried the Synchronous mode for the last 1 hour. 

    4. System all warmed up and same songs, same volume setting. DSD256 direct input from HQPlayer 3.

     

    I can say there is a clear difference in sound. Let me say Asynchronous Mode gives a bit more sparkle and edge to the treble, while Synchronous is a bit more natural , say lesss exciting. 

    As for depth, and other soundscape effects, I guess more listening is needed. 

     

    Happy Listening'

    Kelvin

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, barrows said:

    Josh, I believe the synchronous/asynchronus mode settings refers to the ESS 9038, and not the USB interface?  The ESS chips can be run either "synchronous" in which case the oversampling does in the DAC chip is synchronous, (they are referring to a case where master clock and bit clock are derived form he same source), which results (again, inside the ESS chip) any oversampling being done in integer fashion, which is easier math, and theoretically will result in more precision (less artifacts) in the oversampling process.

    The Asynchronous setting with the ESS chip means the master clock is unrelated to the bit clock, and the DAC resamples all incoming data based on a separate master clock frequency (often 100 MHz is used, but it can be many different frequencies).  The Asynchronus sample rate converter of the ESS chip makes it "immune" to any jitter coming from the source, but with USB input jitter is unlikely to be a problem anyway.

    I build DIY DACs with ESS chips, so I am quite well versed in different ways of running the ESS chips.  I find the synchronous mode to sound more natural: defeating the ASRC and only allowing integer based oversampling appears to avoid some artifacts.

    There are not a lot of DACs which allow the ESS chip to be used in this mode, if the Matrix really does, that is very interesting to me.  BTW, Ayre only uses this mode on their DACs: running the ESS 9038 synchronously, with the OSF (aka "jitter eliminator") off, and doing the first step of oversampling in an FPGA (to 705.6 or 768 kHz).  I find the less the ESS chips do themselves, the better they sound (more natural tone/timbre, better depth as well).  Even better can be sending the chip DSD 256, with sync clocking-I always run DSD 256 into my DIY ESS 9038 DAC.

    If you still have the Matrix around, give the synchronous mode a try, and see if you experience all the same details, but with better tone and timbre.


    Good catch! You are correct. I need to update the article and try the synchronous mode. 
     

    Are you behind Sonore? I *love* your two free SACD programs! I’ve used them for my TBVO columns. 
     

    I’m also looking for a good new USB to SPDIF converter. If you’d like a review of the ultraDigital and @The Computer Audiophile gives the thumbs up (am I missing a previous review, Chris?), I’d be interested in reviewing it. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    8 hours ago, kelvinwsy said:

    Hi there Barrows

    Thanks for the info above. 

    1. I run a SMSL VMV D1 which uses dual ESS 9038 Pro DAC chips

    2. It has been my standard practice to just set the Clock at Asynchronous mode

    3. I just tried the Synchronous mode for the last 1 hour. 

    4. System all warmed up and same songs, same volume setting. DSD256 direct input from HQPlayer 3.

     

    I can say there is a clear difference in sound. Let me say Asynchronous Mode gives a bit more sparkle and edge to the treble, while Synchronous is a bit more natural , say lesss exciting. 

    As for depth, and other soundscape effects, I guess more listening is needed. 

     

    Happy Listening'

    Kelvin

    Tested a lot more ! Asynch sounds way better in my system

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I currently have a Mytek Brooklyn DAC+.  I have been reading about the Matrix X SPIDF 2, however in order to achieve the best results you would want to use the IS2 output, however the Mytek does not have a IS2 input.

     

    A dealer recommended getting the Matrix X Saber Pro (MQA).  I looked on YouTube to see if there were any video reviews and saw Steve Guttenberg's review which was posted a month ago.  He could not get the Matrix DAC to work with MQA files, has anyone else had this issue with the Matrix DAC and MQA files?

     

    For those that do have the Martix DAC or even the Matrix SPIF 2, could you give me your opinions on the Matrix units?

     

    Thanks

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I've posted an update to this DAC review (and several others) for those interested:

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...